MLA’s poaching: SC to hear plea by accused challenging arrest on Monday

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine on Monday a plea by three persons arrested by the Telangana police for allegedly trying to poach MLAs

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine on Monday a plea by three persons arrested by the Telangana police for allegedly trying to poach MLAs of the ruling Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS). All the three accused – Ramachandra Bharti, Kore Nandu Kumar and DPSKVN Simhayaji approached the apex court, challenging their arrest.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna asked the trial court to consider the accused’s bail plea on merits in the meantime, as it scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 7. The accused moved the apex court claiming the case against them is politically motivated.

On October 29, the Telangana High Court had set aside the trial court order after the Cyberabad police filed a criminal revision petition. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha set aside the order of ACB special court judge rejecting remand of the three accused in the case of MLAs’ poaching.

However, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy of the High Court, while hearing a writ petition filed by the BJP seeking probe by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team into the poaching case, passed an interim order instructing the police to keep in abeyance the ongoing investigation into the case.

During the arguments, the Supreme Court made oral observations questioning the need for the BJP to file a writ petition in the High Court rather than those who are facing the charges. The apex court also sought to know on what basis did the High Court considered the petition.

However, KV Viswanathan, a senior advocate for the petitioner, said they have nothing to do with the BJP’s petition in the High Court. He said the petitioner was unnecessarily suffering due to the fight between the TRS and the BJP. He made it clear that they were unaware of the purpose with which the BJP filed the petition in the High Court. Senior advocate Siddhartha Ludra argued the case on behalf of the State government.