Poachgate: HC guides supporter Pratap to show up prior to SIT today
Hyderabad: Justice BollamVijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High court on Thursday routed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) principal not to apprehend Pogulakonda Pratap, supporter, that was released notification by SIT to show up prior to it on November 25 about TRS MLAs poaching instance.
However, he asked Pratap to existing himself prior to SIT on November 25 as well as adhere to instructions released in notification under Section 41A CrPC. The court provided freedom to SIT to come close to the court, if the petitioner does not adhere to instructions in the notification.
Vinod Kumar Deshpandey, elderly advise standing for Pratap, tested the notification competing that no place it claims the supporter is an implicated, a suspicious or he has any kind of product associating with the instance.”
This notice is in sheer violation of Clause 5 & 6 of paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar case. The judgment clearly mentions that the notice issued under Section 41A CrPC should clearly mention that a complaint has been made against the party. Credible information against alleged accused should be there with the police and reasonable suspicion of cognisable offense against noticee should be there. Deshpandey said none of the above information is in the notice.
Moreover, there are no SOPs created by the police on issuance of notice, despite the High Court orders to the police. He argued that the petitioner can be summoned before SIT, if notice is issued under Section 160 CrPC, as a witness.
Advocate-General Banda Shivananda Prasad and Additional Advocate-General J Ramchandra Rao, while opposing the contentions of the senior counsel informed that the SIT was in possession of material against the petitioner, retrieved from electronic gadgets, which cannot be divulged at this stage.
“There is every opportunity that the petitioner will certainly get rid of important information from his cellular phone”.
“Non- look of the petitioner prior to SIT is scuttling of examination, which protests the Supreme Court reasonings”, they insisted.