In a dramatic proof that justice cannot be denied, a non-bailable warrant was issued by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramanagara Dt. (Bangalore) on August 2nd 2011 against Lenin Karuppan in the case filed by actress Smt. Ranjita.
It may be recalled that Lenin is the prime accused in the sordid conspiracy against His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda, involving the fabrication and distribution of a morphed videotape allegedly featuring Paramahamsa Nithyananda with actress Ranjita on 2nd March last year. The morphed video was aired by Tamil channel Sun TV and others . Lenin is also No.1 accused in the case filed by Smt. Ranjita on the same issue.
The order was passed by Hon’ble Magistrate Smt. Roopa at 4.30 pm on 2nd August. A second summons has also been issued against Lenin’s co-conspirators Aarthi Rao and advocate Sridhar. The Hon’ble Magistrate had earlier issued summons to all the three accused returnable by 1st August 2011. Summons have been reissued to Accused No.2 Aarthi Rao and Accused No.3 Advocate Sridhar.
Paramahamsa Nithyananda’s adheenavasis and devotees numbering millions around the world are celebrating the triumph of justice. Paramahamsa Nithyananda himself is right now on a yatra to that most sacred of Hindu pilgrimage spots – Kailash-Manasarovar. We may recall that Paramahamsa Nithyananda has all along declared his complete faith in the Indian judiciary for the speedy dispensation of justice to himself and his traumatized followers.
The complete scanned copy of the order is available at http://nithyananda.org/sites/default/files/news/order_aug3.zip
However, an extract of it is as follows:
ORDERS ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED NO.1 U/s.205 Cr.P.C.
Accused No.1 in his application has contended that since he is not keeping well, he is unable to attend this court today, hence his appearance may be exempted under the provisions of Sec.205 Cr.P.C.
The counsel for complainant filed his objections denying the averments of application Inter alia submitted that. application filed by accused No.1 is premature and same not maintainable as accused No.1 has not appeared before this court today though summons served on him.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the application -…..
…..Coming to the question of contents of the application, the reason given by accused No.1 for his non appearance is ‘accused No.1 is not keeping well”. The contents of the application goes to show that the grounds urged are not satisfactory to exempt the personal appearance of accused No.1. The contents of application are not supported with any documentary proof and they are too simple in nature. On the basis of above said discussions, I am of the opinion that, accused No.1 has not made out any reasonable grounds to support the contents of application. Further, the application itself is not maintainable, as it is premature in nature. Accused No.1 should have appeared before this court today and filed bail application on his behalf, which has not been done. Hence, I hold the that, the application itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
…..Issue N.B.W. to accused No.1 and summons to accused No.2 and 3, returnable by: 29.10.2011