Telangana High Court stays 41-A notice against BL Santosh

Justice K Surender stayed the notice observing that there were no essential ingredients in the notice, which was first issued on November 16 and subsequently, for the second time on November 23.

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday stayed the notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure that was served on BJP national general secretary BL Santosh by the Special Investigation Team probing the MLA poaching case.

Justice K Surender stayed the notice observing that there were no essential ingredients in the notice, which was first issued on November 16 and subsequently, for the second time on November 23. ”The notice does not reveal that if any reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that the petitioner has committed a cognizable offence,” the judge held.

---

The order came after Santosh filed a case challenging the notice. Representing the BJP leader, senior counsel Prakash Reddy argued that when a notice was issued, it had to indicate the material against him to call for investigation in order to answer questions from the police and to assist the investigation.

Advocate General BS Prasad, meanwhile argued that Santosh was deliberately avoiding the investigation. His arrest was required to secure his presence, he said. The division bench and subsequently, the Supreme Court had allowed the SIT to go ahead with the investigation, he said, arguing that Santosh was a ‘crucial person’ and that he was involved in the serious offence of attempting to dethrone the State government.

“There is voluminous record, if required, we will place the investigation report before this court in a sealed cover,” the AG said, also arguing Santosh, who had first said he would appear before the SIT, and then turned back and challenged the notice, was ”abusing the process of law” and that he could not be permitted to buy time again and again.

With the AG also stating that Santosh was now arrayed as the fourth accused in the case, Prakash Reddy argued that the notices prior to him being added as accused would not be valid anymore.

Following the arguments, the judge stayed the notice and directed the SIT to ascertain if there was any material to match the requirements under the 41-A notice. He posted the case to December 5 for further hearing.