MLA poaching case: Telangana HC orders accused to surrender before police
The ACB court had rejected the remand appeal of the Cyberabad police of Ramachandra Bharati, Nanda Kumar and Simhayaji Swamy and asked them to probe after issuing a notice under 41 CrPC.
Hyderabad: In a day of swift developments that saw several twists and turns in cases related to the BJP’s covert operation to buy four TRS legislators, the High Court on Saturday issued orders directing the three accused to surrender before the police. In a separate order, the High Court also stayed further proceedings in the investigation of the case till November 4.
Taking up hearing on the petition filed by the Cyberabad Police against the ACB Court’s judgement releasing the three accused, Justice C Sumalatha directed the accused, Ramachandra Bharati alias Satish Sharma, Nanda Kumar and Simhayaji Swamy, to surrender before the Cyberabad Police Commissioner. In case the accused fail to surrender, the police were given the liberty to arrest them.
Also Read
Justice Sumalatha also directed the police to produce the accused before the Magistrate concerned, with the Magistrate being directed to remand them to judicial custody. The judge held that though a notice under Section 41-A was required to be served to the accused before arrest according to the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court judgement in the Arnesh Kumar case, remand could be allowed in cases warranting arrest.
Advocate General BS Prasad, appearing on behalf of the State, argued that there was no blanket ban on arresting accused involved in offences of punishment up to 7 years. Vedula Srinivas, Senior Counsel, appearing for the accused, argued that the case of the accused mandates a 41-A notice. After elaborate hearing of the case on criminal procedure and judgments of the Supreme Court on arrest in the cases involving the offences punishable for a period not exceeding 7 years, the court passed a detailed order.
However, even as the Cyberabad police reached a house in Shaikpet where the three accused were and took them into custody, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy issued orders staying further proceedings in the investigation of the case registered by the Moinabad police. The judge also stated that the order ‘shall not cause prejudice to either parties’.
The BJP’s Telangana unit had moved the court challenging the investigation of the Moinabad Police and seeking directions for transfer of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. J Prabhakar, Senior Counsel, arguing on behalf of the petitioner, told the court that the case and investigation were aimed at tarnishing the BJP’s image. The practice was that investigation is carried out by the Investigation officer, but in this case, the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, was directly involved, the BJP said in its petition.
The police had also invoked the Prevention of Corruption Act without conducting a preliminary enquiry, the petition said, adding that the MLA was not a public servant and they were not conducting public duty at the time of incident. The TRS MLAs had gone directly to the residence of the Chief Minister from the farmhouse, which the BJP alleged was abuse of process of law at the behest of the Chief Minister.
Stating that the complaint was politically motivated, the BJP’s counsel stressed upon an investigation by the CBI. In response, Additional Advocate General J Ramchandra Rao contended that the BJP had no locus standi to come before the court.
“The petitioner before court is not an accused in the crime and moreover the accused has no say in deciding the investigation agency,” he said.
Consent of the State government is required for the CBI enquiry, he said, while Advocate General BS Prasad, joining the argument, said the MLA was a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He pointed out the limited jurisdiction of High Courts in transferring cases from one investigating agency to another and contended that the writ petition was not maintainable at all.
The counsel for BJP however argued the name of the BJP was being taken though the party was not related to the case, and said the allegations had national ramification, and as such the party had locus in the case.
The judge, finding that though the panchnama was said to have been conducted on October 26, the mediators had signed it the next day, raised suspicion on the investigation and stayed further investigation till November 4.
