Chennai: The Madras High Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a plea by two key accused in the Kodanad heist case, seeking quashing of a lower court's order cancelling their bail.
Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan reserved order after hearing arguments.
Nilgiris District Judge P Vadamalai, on February 8, cancelled the bail of the two prime accused - K V Sayan and K C Manoj - after the prosecution petitioned that the duo made public statements about the case and were hampering investigation and intimidating witnesses.
Aggrieved, the two men moved the high court seeking quashing of the strict judge's order.
At the Kodanad estate in Nilgiris district, which was used by former chief minister J Jayalalithaa for both official and residential purposes, a guard was found dead on April 23, 2017 in an alleged robbery attempt.
Later, police arrested 10 people, including Sayan and Manoj.
In January this year, Manoj and Sayan alleged the involvement of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami in the heist case in a video released by a journalist Mathew Samuel in Delhi.
Palaniswami had rejected the charges, dismissing it as a "lie".
He had also filed a defamation suit in the high court which had restrained Samuel and six others, including Sayan and Manoj, from making any statement linking Palaniswami to the Kodanad case.
Opposing the quash plea, public prosecutor, A Natarajan submitted that the duo -- by a media interview to journalist Samuel -- were attempting to interfere in the administration of justice, misusing their bail.
Two witnesses lodged police complaints that they were being threatened by the accused and they have been provided police protection.
Citing the duo's interview, the prosecutor said it was scripted and hearsay in nature and hence an inadmissible evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act.
Natarajan also highlighted the "bad antecedents" of the petitioners and argued that the allegations made by such persons against the chief minister "is totally unreliable."
Denying the allegations, senior counsel N R Elango for the petitioners submitted that the antecedents of the accused were not admissible under the Evidence Act.
