Nine days later, Manne Krishank yet to get bail as case drags on

The complaint, it said, "a notice is being circulated in the social media and it is damaging the reputation of the University".

Hyderabad: Nearly days after he was arrested, BRS social media convener Manne Krishank is yet to get bail, with the BRS assertion that he was being deliberately targeted gathering strength and support.

The BRS Legal Cell on Thursday sought to know what the case was about. It pointed out that the investigation officer said in the remand case diary that “this is a case of document forgery for the purpose of cheating with an intention to harm all the reputation of a political party.”

---

However, he had not specified which political party’s reputation was involved. The complaint was only in six lines, wherein the complainant never claimed any forgery and any other offences as framed by the police in FIR and remand report, the Cell said.

The complaint, it said, “a notice is being circulated in the social media and it is damaging the reputation of the University”.

However, the FIR and the remand report, however had no mention about any such section which speaks about the damaging the reputation of OU.

The BRS Legal Cell contended that if the case was not about damaging the reputation of the university any more as per the investigation, the complaint itself was wrong. And if the case was about causing harm to the reputation of a political party, there was no complaint ever filed by any political party.

So what was the case all about, it asked. Further, as per the FIR, only Krishank was accused. But in the remand case diary, the name of K Nagender was added as accused no. 2.

When a bail petition was moved, the case was posted for hearing on May 2. That day, the case was called and the prosecution sought pass over for filing counter after lunch.

After 4 pm the same day, the public prosecutor sought time to file a counter, and the court adjourned the case to May 3. On May 3, the prosecution filed counter and custody petition seeking two day custody.

The next day, custody petition orders were pronounced and the the bail petition was posted for May 6. However, on May 6, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate went on leave, following which the bail petition was taken to the ACMM VI, who, according to the BRS Legal Cell, applied half day leave due to ill health and left.

The bail petition was then taken to ACMM VII, who heard both sides and posted the case to May 7 for further hearing and on that day, hearing was done again the case posted for orders on May 8 (Wednesday).

However, on Wednesday, the bail petition was transferred to ACMM VII who was already on leave. Due to this, the bail petition was heard by ACMM XXI, who posted the case to May 9 (Thursday) for hearing before ACMM VIII.

On Thursday, arguments were heard and the case was posted for further hearing on Friday. The BRS legal cell said this was a case where in usual course, the court grants bail on the same day or next day by taking sureties. However, Krishank was deprived from being granted a bail ignoring Supreme Court judgements.