Telangana High Court questions arrest of Patnam Narender Reddy in Lagacherla case
The High Court on Wednesday sharply criticized police officials over the arrest of former Kodangal MLA Patnam Narender Reddy in connection with the Lagacherla incident. The court raised serious concerns about the manner in which the arrest was carried out, particularly asking whether the police considered Reddy to be a 'terrorist' given the circumstances of his detention.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday sharply criticized police officials over the arrest of former Kodangal MLA Patnam Narender Reddy in connection with the Lagacherla incident. The court raised serious concerns about the manner in which the arrest was carried out, particularly asking whether the police considered Reddy to be a ‘terrorist’ given the circumstances of his detention.
Justice Lakshman, while hearing a quash petition filed by Reddy, was visibly perturbed by the handling of the situation by the police.
“Is he a terrorist to be arrested during a morning walk at the KBR Park?” the judge asked, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the police action.
“You could have easily arrested him at his home, informing his family members and following the proper arrest procedure. Moreover, he has gunmen who could have provided you with information on his whereabouts,” Justice Lakshman added, expressing dissatisfaction over the police’s decision to arrest Reddy in a public place.
The former MLA’s arrest followed a remand order issued on November 13 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) at Kodangal in Vikarabad District, in relation to the Lagacherla incident. Reddy’s legal team argued that his arrest was not only arbitrary but also unlawful, as there was no evidence linking him to the incident. Senior counsel Gandra Mohan Rao, representing Reddy, contended that the arrest was politically motivated and the remand order was in violation of legal principles.
Mohan Rao pointed out that 12 police personnel in plainclothes arrested Reddy, with no solid justification for his detention.
“The remand case diary is devoid of any reasons that would justify the arrest or remand of the petitioner,” he argued, also highlighting that the magistrate failed to consider that the grounds for Reddy’s arrest were not furnished to him, which violates the Supreme Court’s guidelines laid down in the case of Prabir Purkayastha.
Furthermore, Rao criticized the fact that Reddy’s name appeared only in the second remand report and emphasized that his arrest was solely based on the confession of another individual, with no material evidence linking Reddy to any offense that would warrant such drastic legal action.
Public Prosecutor, Palle Nageshwar Rao, defending the police’s actions, informed the court that Reddy’s bail application and a police custody petition were still pending before the magistrate. He requested that the court refrain from passing any orders until these petitions were heard. However, Justice Lakshman swiftly countered, stating that the pending applications would not bar the High Court from scrutinizing the legality of the remand order.
The prosecutor also claimed 89 calls between Reddy and the main accused, Suresh. In response, Mohan Rao dismissed this as a common practice among party members, claiming that communication with cadre on various issues did not automatically suggest criminal involvement.
Justice Lakshman instructed the Public Prosecutor to present all the material evidence against Reddy, including witness statements, that could potentially substantiate the allegations. The judge scheduled the case for further hearing on Thursday. The contempt case filed by Reddy’s wife on the violation of arrest procedure is also expected to be heard by the High Court this week.
