The Supreme Court on April 24 set aside a Telangana High Court order of April 18 which gave Kadapa MP Y.S. Avinash Reddy interim protection and asked him to make himself available at the CBI office between April 19 to April 25 where he would be given a printed questionnaire in a Q&A format.
This was in connection to the investigation in the murder case of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, a member of the Indian National Congress and brother of the late Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy.
Terming the High Court order “unwarranted”, a Bench of Chief Justice D. Y. Chandarchud and Justice P. S. Narasimha quashed the direction the HC had issued to the CBI, adding that the order was “extraordinary” and “stultified” the investigation.
The Supreme Court, however, said the High Court can proceed with the hearing of the anticipatory bail plea of Avinash Reddy on merits.
It also rejected the vehement submissions of senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Avinash Reddy, that he be protected from arrest for at least 24 hours as the anticipatory bail plea is listed for hearing on April 25 before the Telangana High Court.
“Few minutes back, you wanted to withdraw the plea itself. For us, in a normal case, we would have allowed withdrawal of the anticipatory bail plea and moved on. But in this case we had to say that the high court cannot pass such orders. We were really perturbed by the high court order. If the CBI had to arrest you, they would have done it earlier. The CBI has shown utmost restraint,” the Bench said.
The Bench said the High Court directed that Avinash Reddy present himself at the CBI office between April 19 and April 25 for investigation and the question-answer shall be in written form and that a questionnaire shall be handed over to the accused.
“The order of this nature will stultify investigation. The High Court cannot order an investigation of a suspect to be in written form.
“It is completely inappropriate for the High Court to order the questionnaire to be given to the first respondent (Avinash Reddy). Such orders prejudice the investigation, especially when the CBI is ascertaining the role of several accused. The directions of the high court were unwarranted and thus the high court order is set aside,” the bench said
Previously, while orally remarking on the case, the Supreme Court termed the order “atrocious and unacceptable”. The court stayed the Telangana HC order which granted protection from arrest till April 25 to Mr. Avinash Reddy in the murder of his uncle.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice P. S. Narasimha, issued notice on the plea challenging protection to Mr. Reddy and also directed CBI not to arrest Avinash Reddy till April 24.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by Dr. Suneetha Narreddy, daughter Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy, challenging the High Court order.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Suneetha, said the investigation was transferred from Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad in Telangana due to political patronage being enjoyed by the accused lawmaker. When the Supreme Court said it was inclined to stay the High Court order, senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Avinash Reddy, said his client was sitting with CBI and may be arrested due to this order.
Vivekananda Reddy, one of the brothers of the late Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, was found murdered at his residence in Pulivendula in Kadapa district, on the night of March 15, 2019, weeks before the Assembly elections in the state. Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy, the son of Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy and a cousin of Avinash Reddy, is currently the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.
The Telangana High Court on April 18 directed the YSRCP MP to appear for examination before the CBI every day and granted him protection from arrest till April 25.
Passing the interim direction, the Judge said till April 25 the MP should appear before CBI officials every day for any examination in connection with the ongoing investigation into the case. The court said the questions to be posed to the MP should be in written form. His examination by the CBI should be recorded in audio and video modes, the order said.
Advocate T. Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the MP, contended that the content in Bhaskar Reddy’s remand report and the statement of fourth accused Dastagir were contradictory. Referring to an interview of Dastagir published by a Telugu news daily, the lawyer said his comments on changing the investigating officer in the case were not appropriate since the IO was changed by the Supreme Court.
There were different possible motives behind Vivekananda Reddy’s killing, including political differences, the lawyer said.
Petitioner’s counsel told the court that arresting a MP without clinching evidence would cause irreparable damage to his political career and affect his image. The lawyer claimed that even Vivekananda Reddy supported Avinash Reddy during the latter’s election campaign. Before CBI had taken over investigation of the case, the Special Investigation Team of Andhra Pradesh police probed the case.
However, this material gathered by SIT was not presented before the magistrate concerned. The CBI probe was not transparent. Though the investigating agency had no clear-cut evidence against the MP, barring the statement of Dastagir, the MP was ready to cooperate with the CBI officials, the lawyer said.
The CBI, which is investigating the murder case, had issued notice to Avinash Reddy, the Lok Sabha member from Kadapa, asking him to appear before it on April 17 for questioning. The MP had earlier appeared four times before the CBI.
The murder case was initially probed by a special investigation team (SIT) of the state CID but was handed over to the CBI in July 2020.
The CBI filed a charge sheet in the murder case on October 26, 2021, and followed it up with a supplementary charge sheet on January 31, 2022
(With PTI inputs)
