AP charges against lawmakers do not require pre-trial detention, the court says.
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Jaganmohan Reddy-led government of the YSR Congress in Andhra Pradesh is under no obligation to detain the Narasapuram MP and the party’s vocal critic, Raghu Ramakrishna Raju, who is now being accused of sedition , and gave him bail.
A bench owned by Judges Vineet Saran and BR Gavai gave Mr. Raju his freedom after a hearing that spanned most of the day and beyond normal court hours.
The court cited his assaults highlighted in a medical report prepared by doctors at Secunderabad Army Hospital and the fact that his charges did not require an examination to rule in his favor. The court said the possibility of mistreatment cannot be ruled out.
The Army Hospital medical report, some of which was read in court, showed that Mr. Raju suffered from generalized edema, bruises and a broken toe.
Senior attorney Mukul Rohtagi for Mr. Raju alleged that he was “tortured” in police custody and requested a CBI investigation.
Senior Attorney Dushyant Dave for Andhra Pradesh said the injuries “may have been self-inflicted”.
The bank said that Mr Raju’s public statements against his party and his prime minister are on record. An FIR has already been submitted on the basis of a detailed investigation by the state CID.
The bank said the MP deserved a bail, given “the entirety of the circumstances and his health position.”
The court pointed out that Mr. Raju also had heart surgery.
However, the court ordered Mr. Raju not to interact with the media on “any matter relating to the case.”
Judge Gavai stressed that Mr. Raju should not show his injuries to the media. “We will take it very seriously,” noted the bank.
The court imposed other conditions, including the provision of a £ 1 personal guarantee and two guarantees in front of the court concerned.
Mr. Raju should be notified 24 hours before the interview. His interrogation should only be carried out in the presence of his lawyer. Mr. Raju, on the other hand, should not influence witnesses or manipulate the probe.
The registration of a riot and the arrest of Mr. Raju was not a “knee-jerk reaction”, the Andhra Pradesh government had insisted before the Supreme Court.
Mr. Raju had consistently and deliberately abused his reach and authority as a public figure to create caste and community dissatisfaction in the state. His words and actions had indeed sparked violence. His intention was to arouse popular discontent against the state government, the lawyer said.
Mr Raju had previously argued that the hate speech charges were brought against him just to silence him. The MP appealed to the Apex court to protect his fundamental right to freedom of expression.