Chennai,  Senior leader of the AIADMK and former fisheries minister of Tamil Nadu, D.Jayakumar will walk out of prison after the Madras High court granted him conditional bail in another case.

Jayakumar was earlier given bail in two other cases, but due to the third case, he could not walk out of the prison. With the Madras High Court judge granting him bail in the third case also, the former minister will come out of prison on Friday itself.

Justice Jagadish Chandra of the Madras High Court granted him bail stating that he should remain in Tiruchi for the next two weeks and report before the Cantonment police station.

The court in the order said that he has to appear before the police in the case related to the assault on a DMK worker who was trying to cast a bogus vote. The DMK worker was caught red-handed by D. Jayakumar and forced to parade half-naked in the city. The judge also ordered Jayakumar to appear before the Chennai Police in another case.

The former minister was arrested on February 20 in the first case of allegedly forcing a DMK worker to remove his shirt and then parading him.

After this, two more cases were filed against the former minister -- one in road blockade and another in a property dispute cases. The third case in which the former minister got bail was regarding a family property dispute between his son-in-law Naveen Kumar and his brother Magesh Kumar.

The former minister in his argument said that the property dispute between his son-in-law and brother took place in 2016 and then again in 2020. In the argument before the Madras High Court, the advocate of Jayakumar said that the police had taken action against the former minister only now and that there was no explanation for the enormous delay in registration of the FIR.

Jayakumar had moved the high court after the Principal sessions court, Chengalpattu, had rejected his bail application. The former minister informed the court that he was a law-abiding citizen and that there was prima facie no case against him. He said that the content of the FIR was civil in nature but has been given a criminal colour.