Table of Contents
AP High Court Denies Relief to YSR Leaders in Attack Cases; Counsel to Advise on Acquisition Transaction
In an event of recently the anticipatory bail applications of leaders and activists of the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu [YSR] Congress party were rejected by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in regarding to the cases that accused the party for the attack on the Telugu Desam Party [TDP] party office and residence of the Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu in the year 2021.
It is submitted that the criticism of other political parties or activities of their workers and leaders cannot lead to result violence and breach in the law of justice VRK Krupa Sagar.
“The right of every individual for peace and quiet life shall be respected regardless how much the political parties and those with them may dislike the political activities and opinions of the other political parties and their supporters.” Discipline in life and obedience to law always requires one to listen and obey the reasonable directions of the policemen on duty. The political parties and leaders and their supporters must exercise restrain up to the maximum level during moments of anger.
Justice VRK Krupa Sagar
Justice VRK Krupa Sagar
While TDP was in opposition when the incidences had taken place and YSR Congress was in power.
Likewise, Jogi Ramesh connected with the case regarding violence outside the residential place of CM Naidu who was then the leader of opposition and is an ex minister also.
Referring to such incident as on the Naidu residence, the police charged the perpetrators under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code that deals with attempt to murder.
Newer similar offences were included to the FIR registered in connection with the destruction of property at the party office.
The counsel of the accused while arguing for anticipatory bail submitted that the matters smacked of political revenge. But the Court said that the investigating agency could not gather the courage to conclude this investigation earlier.
This the judge said in one of the orders; “The change of political party at the helm of affairs as stated by petitioners is the cause of implication of these petitioners after a long lapse of time.If that be so, on the same touch stone it can possibly be said that it was earlier to that change that the investigation commenced and kept dormant without finalization”.
Similarly the court further held that the accused and their accomplices engaged themselves in terrorizing their opponent political parties and thus subverted the democratic process.
“But there was a larger conspiracy and to investigate the same there is the investigative need of interrogation.When analyzing the facts of the case such opinion of the prosecution agency cannot be criticised as not being based on any real need.”
The Court also stated that inadequacy in investigation if caused due to delay, cannot be a reason to presume that it is a framed up case.
The facts on record reveal that the accused reached to the house of Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu and committed these acts of violence though he was not the one who had made any statement against any one who gathered there, Thus, in the name of holding a dharna they reached to a place and targeted a person who happened to be the leader of the opposite party Hence, in a political democracy events of such nature have always to be deprecated
In this case, the senior counsel Ponnavolu Sudhakara Reddy and P Veera Reddy and Naidu Siva Rama Krishna Kiran Tirumalasetti Varun Byreddy,Y Nagi Reddy,Vijaya Lakshmi Pittu Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy,Sasanka Bhuvanagiri S Dushyanth Reddy Deepak Mishra and Y Nagi Red
Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Counsel, Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu and Public Prosecutor Mr. M Lakshmi Narayana represented State.
