AP High Court slams magistrates for mechanical remand of YSRCP leader Kakani Govardhan Reddy
While hearing three petitions filed by Kakani, Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy made rigid comments on magistrates, and termed the mechanical functioning unfortunate. 'What can we do? This is how magistrates are functioning. This is a sorry state of affairs,' he observed.
Challenging the lower court orders related to cases involving illegal mining, soil excavation, and morphed photos of TDP leader Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, Kakani filed three separate petitions.
His counsel argued that despite the offences attracting less than seven year imprisonment, Section 41A of CrPC was not followed, and PT warrants were issued without any justification. The court adjourned hearing of petitions to July 8.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Excise policy scam case: What's the fear in supplying list of ‘unrelied documents', Delhi HC asks CBI
'What is the fear' in providing the list of 'unrelied upon documents (URDs)', the Delhi High Court orally asked the CBI on Friday while hearing a petition filed by the central agency against a May 22 trial court order in connection with the excise policy scam case. The trial court had directed that summons to produce documents or summons to individuals must be included in the list of URDs. 'Unrelied' documents are collected by probe agencies at the time of investigation but not used as evidence by the prosecution. The CBI has challenged the May 22 Rouse Avenue special CBI court order, which had stated that the court will proceed with the arguments on charges 'once the relied-upon digital evidence copy and the list of URDs are supplied to the accused individuals'. The trial court had reasoned that 'as the CBI must provide copies of relied-upon digital data currently with CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory), this court cannot yet hear arguments on charge, given that all relied-upon documents must be available to the accused before charges'. It had directed that 'all notices under Section 91/160 CrPC and written communications sent by CBI to others, including witnesses and accused, and all written communications/documents received by CBI concerning those notices/written communications, must be included in the list of URDs if CBI does not intend to rely on them in this trial'. Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers police officers to summon individuals to assist in the probe. Directing that the list of URDs should be filed in court, and copies of the list must be supplied to all accused, the trial court had directed that the investigating officer (IO) 'shall file an affidavit confirming that no other such notice/communication/document is omitted from the relied-upon documents or the URD'. Opposing the direction to the IO, the CBI, while arguing before Justice Ravinder Dudeja, also opposed the direction that notices issued to and statements made by the accused under Section 160 of CrPC — before they were considered to be an accused in the case — be considered a part of URDs. The CBI's counsel told HC, 'We have already given whatever we are relying upon, the (special CBI) judge wants the entire data to be given… CrPC sections 91 and 160 are tools of investigation, how can it be given? It is not part of the evidence collected.' 'There cannot be a procedure in the Delhi excise case which is different from any other case… (IO of) CBI has to file an affidavit for (filing all unrelied communication/notices) everything? It is unheard of… Some people have intimate messages and videos, some have competitive information (as businesses are also accused in the case)… There are privacy concerns… Inter se, conflict of privacy in URDs should not stall the trial,' the counsel added. Further opposing the supply of CrPC Section 160 notices and statements of accused recorded prior to them being made accused, the CBI added, 'Once they have been made accused, that statement is not part of relied upon or unrelied upon documents, because those statements can also trample upon somebody's right to self-incrimination.' Justice Dudeja, however, asked the CBI's counsel, '…Point is, why should it not be given… Disclosure statements of accused persons are not made part of the record… Why did you record the statement of the accused at the first instance if you were not going to rely, or not rely on such statements? You can provide the list (of URDs).' While CBI contended that if included in the list of URDs, 'it will then be seen by everybody else', Justice Dudeja orally responded, 'Show then… what is the fear… What is the prejudice being caused to you in case you hand over the copies of the notices under CrPC Section 160? Why do you not want to share these notices?' The CBI contended, 'It is not about fear, it's about what is relevant and not… (If the trial court's directions are upheld) what will happen is, it will become a practice (of including CrPC Section 160 notices) which does not exist at all… It is a roving inquiry.' A defence advocate for the accused, Rajat Bharadwaj, contended before the court, 'The fear is the entire frivolous investigation they have done will come all out in the open. Since past six months, they are not supplying us these documents… thereby these directions have been passed by the trial court.' Another defence advocate, Adit Pujari, added, 'This is a bogey being played (by CBI)… that supply of the list is going to delay arguments on charge…' While an order is awaited, Justice Dudeja indicated that the court is not inclined to stay the order till a status report is filed, all accused are served and their responses to the CBI's petition come on record. The court also indicated that it is agreeable only to the aspect of staying the direction that requires the IO to file an affidavit before the trial court.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Prashant bids adieu to Vijay, for now
Chennai: Poll strategist and Jan Suraaj Party founder-president Prashant Kishor has taken a break as advisor to actor Vijay and his Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). Kishor told TOI that he is busy with election work in Bihar and will take a call about continuing as Vijay's advisor after Nov. More than 30 employees of Simple Sense Analytics, who Kishor had made available for TVK, exited recently; a few others of the team are now working for Voice of Commons, a consultancy firm run by TVK general secretary (election campaign management) Aadhav Arjuna, multiple sources confirmed. While Arjuna is recruiting for VoC, independent consultant Jhon Arokiasamy continues to work for TVK. All major political parties in Tamil Nadu have activated their war rooms for the 2026 assembly election. DMK is working with IPA-C (Indian Political Action Committee) and Robbin Sharma, who helped TDP president N Chandrababu Naidu and Shiv Sena chairperson Eknath Shinde script success in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai Sources said TN deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin is taking advice from some former team members of poll strategist Sunil Kanugolu, besides PEN (Populus Empowerment Network), a DMK-affiliated socio-political research organisation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Empieza a ganar un segundo sueldo con Mercado Libre CFD Actualidad-CL Más información Undo AIADMK has engaged Sravanth Devabhaktini and Hari Kasula, who heads the Hyderabad-based Pramanya Strategy Consulting. With a team of more than 200 members, the group has worked in 18 states since 2011 and strategised for TDP's Chandrababu Naidu and BJP's Pawan Kalyan and Vasundhara Raje. Sources said Kishor had held talks with AIADMK before leaning to the TVK camp. "He was riding two horses, and EPS showed him the door," said a senior AIADMK functionary. While still an advisor to Vijay, Kishor, in an interview to a Tamil news channel on March 1, had been categorical that TVK will go it alone for the 2026 assembly election in TN. All major political parties in Tamil Nadu have activated their war rooms for the 2026 assembly election. DMK is working with IPA-C (Indian Political Action Committee) and Robbin Sharma, who helped TDP president N Chandrababu Naidu and Shiv Sena chairperson Eknath Shinde script success in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Sources said TN deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin is taking advice from some former team members of poll strategist Sunil Kanugolu, besides PEN (Populus Empowerment Network), a DMK-affiliated socio-political research organisation. AIADMK has engaged Sravanth Devabhaktini and Hari Kasula, who heads the Hyderabad-based Pramanya Strategy Consulting. With a team of more than 200 members, the group has worked in 18 states since 2011 and strategised for TDP's Chandrababu Naidu and BJP's Pawan Kalyan and Vasundhara Raje.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Under BNSS, no bar on anticipatory bail in cases with death, life punishment: HC
1 2 3 Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has held that with the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) from July 1, 2024, the restriction on granting anticipatory bail in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment under section 438(6) of the CrPC (as was applicable in the state of UP), no longer applies. The court clarified that since Section 482 of BNSS, which now governs anticipatory bail, does not retain any such prohibition as was contained under section 438 (6) of the CrPC, there is no bar on granting anticipatory bail in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment. With this clarification, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, in its judgment dated July 3, allowed the second anticipatory bail application filed by one Abdul Hameed, who was summoned to face trial in a 2011 murder case but was not charge-sheeted during the investigation. The applicant's first anticipatory bail plea was rejected in Feb 2023 by a coordinate bench of the high court, in view of the bar contained under Section 438(6) CrPC. The bar inter alia on the grant of anticipatory bail for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment was introduced by the UP Amendment Act, 2019. After July 1, 2024, with the BNSS coming into force, the applicant filed a fresh application under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking anticipatory bail. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Scientists: Tinnitus? When tinnitus won't go away, do this (Watch) Hearing Magazine Undo The sessions court rejected it in March 2025, prompting him to move the high court. The applicant argued that the statutory bar under Section 438(6) CrPC no longer existed under BNSS, and the current application was filed under a completely different statutory regime. The state govt's counsel said that the applicant was trying to circumvent this statutory embargo by invoking Section 482 of the newly enacted BNSS, which does not contain a similar bar. It was submitted that since the offence was committed in 2011, and the charge sheet was filed under the CrPC regime, and even the cognizance was taken well prior to the BNSS coming into force, BNSS cannot retrospectively override the bar under Section 438(6) as applicable in UP. Having heard the counsels for both parties, the court said that the omission under Section 482 of BNSS, which governs anticipatory bail, regarding the bar under section 438(6) CrPC was conscious and deliberate, which indicated that the Parliament did not intend to continue the restriction introduced by the UP Amendment Act, 2019. "The absence of such prohibition in the new enactment assumes greater significance when viewed against the backdrop of the specific inclusion of this bar in the state amendment to CrPC," the court said. The court also noted that "the enactment of BNSS has created material changed circumstances, both in law and fact that justify fresh consideration on merits. The removal of the statutory bar contained in Section 438(6) of CrPC represents a fundamental change in the legal framework that obliterates the foundation upon which the first application was rejected". The court said that the first application was dismissed on maintainability and not merits, and since the legislative landscape had changed, the present application was maintainable. In its judgment dated July 3, the court cited a high court order in a case of 2024 to note that the present application filed after July 1, 2024, falls within the ambit of BNSS, and the applicant is entitled to benefit from more liberal provisions thereof.
