Telangana High Court again raps cops for illegalities in Patnam Narender Reddy arrest
The judge criticized the investigating officer for irregularities in the arrest procedure and questioned how releasing the petitioner would impact the investigation. "This court does not seek to interfere with the investigation but is addressing the illegality in the arrest process," the judge clarified. Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao, representing the police, presented witness statements as directed by the court. He stated that the confession statements of the 21st and 22nd accused, along with call data records, were used to implicate the MLA, the petitioner, in the case.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Thursday came down heavily on the State police for relying on allegations that were “not part of the reasons and grounds mentioned in the remand report” for arresting former Kodangal MLA Patnam Narender Reddy of the BRS. The Judge faulted the investigation officer for irregularities in the arrest procedure and questioned how the petitioner’s release would affect the investigation process.
“This court does not intend to interfere with the investigation, only the illegality in the arrest procedure is being looked into,” the judge said.
Public Prosecutor, Palle Nageshwar Rao, representing the Police Department produced before court the witness statements sought by the court. He said the confession statements of the 21st and 22nd accused along with the call data records were the basis for implicating the MLA, the petitioner in the case, in the crime. The Public Prosecutor also handed over a pen drive to the court and stated that the video content would reveal the involvement of Reddy prior to and post the Lagacherla incident. Nageshwar Rao alleged that the videos would reveal Reddy provoking his associates to attack the Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy and district officials if they visited the village. He further stated that another FIR was registered prior to the incident on October 25. On enquiring about the said FIR with the public prosecutor, the Judge found that Reddy was not an accused in that FIR. The Judge wondered if a pen drive submitted in the court hall without following procedure of filing a supporting affidavit could be relied. The Public Prosecutor then stood corrected and sought court permission to file the relevant affidavit for relying on the pen drive. The judge refused to play the content in the Court Hall and stated that he would consider the content in the pen drive after relevant procedure was followed.
In sharp response to the allegation raised by the Public Prosecutor that Rs.10 crore was released by BRS working president KT Rama Rao for fighting legal cases in the incident, the Judge asked him to produce supporting material for such allegations. However, no such material was placed before the Court.
The Public Prosecutor informed the court that multiple applications were filed by Reddy and his wife, to which Justice Lakshman raised query as to what was the illegality in pursuing legal remedies including filing a bail application, seeking quash of remand, multiple FIRs and seeking suo moto contempt for violating Supreme Court guidelines on arrest. In support of his contention that procedure was followed, the Public Prosecutor referred to the arrest memo and pointed out two signatures at the same place and stated that they belonged to Reddy and his associate Saleem, who was informed about the arrest. The Judge remarked that this was sufficient enough to show that the arrest was illegal.
Petitioner Counsel Gandra Mohan Rao also added that Reddy had already placed on record that his signatures were taken on empty papers before his arrest. Further the Public Prosecutor alleged that Accused No.2, a YouTube content creator was handpicked by Reddy to attack district officials. He said the petitioner assured his associates that they were backed by BRS party leaders K. Chandrashekhar Rao and KT Rama Rao. The Judge quizzed the Public Prosecutor why such allegations raised before the court today were not part of the remand report which clearly assigns the reasons and grounds of arrest.
As the Public Prosecutor requested the Court to consider the severity in the issue, the Judge commented: “The severity of the issue must be considered before the arrest, but not after the arrest.”
The Judge conceded with the submissions made by Petitioner Counsel Mohan Rao that the arrest memo failed to properly document the time and place of the arrest. When the Public Prosecutor tried to convince the court that the investigating officer had followed the procedure and Reddy was arrested at his home, the Judge orally commented that “we was aware of the kind of investigation officers we have in the State”.
The Judge also referred to a murder case that occurred in Medak and how the investigating officer had tried to discard the dying declaration of the deceased. Even when this Court directed the Superintendent of Police to investigate the issue, the SP had questioned the doctor on issues unrelated to the doctor. “This shows the kind of IPS officers we have in the department,” he remarked.
The court after hearing both sides at length reserved the case for orders.
In a connected matter to the issue, a lunch motion was moved by Patnam Narendar Reddy challenging multiple FIRs. Justice B. Vijay Sen Reddy directed the High Court Registry to post the matter before the Judge dealing with MP and MLA cases.
