Poachgate: State files writ appeal challenging single judge order on CBI probe

Hyderabad: Dushyant Dave, senior Supreme Court counsel, on Thursday argued in the Telangana High Court for the State and sought immediate suspension of the order of single judge handing over the probe into the BRS MLAs' poaching case to CBI.

Dave argued that though the petitioners before the single judge had never asked for quashing the investigation by the SIT, he scrapped it. Moreover, the investigation was done in the most scientific manner. The SIT had collected all the audio, video conversations from the Moinabad farmhouse and sent them to FSL and got them authenticated, but still the judge quashed the investigation.

During the course of arguments, he apprised the division bench of the court that the SC in many cases had said that the investigation, in a particular case, should be transferred to CBI in rarest of rare case. Here in this case, there was no such aspect, upon which the judge transferred the case to CBI.

Dave contended that under Section 6 of the Delhi Police Act, no other investigating agency can probe the case in the State; if the HC directs the CBI to investigate the poaching case, then it will affect the country's federal structure, because BRS is an elected government and it will affect more than three crore voters in the State. After this order people of Telangana will be fiddling their thumbs as there will be no remedy for them till the next general elections.

He pleaded before the court to pass an interim order granting stay on the judge order because, if the CBI takes over the investigation, then the appeals filed by the State will become infructuous.

"The judgment of single judge is as a bundle of contradictions, the senior counsel averred. "The police have every right to investigate a case; when the Investigation was going in the right manner, the single judge quashed it, contrary to the SC orders, which said that investigation should not be scuttled, that too in this case, when the probe was at nascent stage.

"The single judge had declared complete distrust in the State police by handing over the investigation to CBI. The audio and video clearly caught the accused red-handed while they were conspiring to topple the duly-elected BRS government".

"The accused had WhatsApp conversation, their photographs with top BJP leaders were placed before the court.This aspect could have created some seriousness in the order of the single judge", he averred."The BJP in its petition nowhere sought quashing of FIR 455/2022.

"The BJP, petitioner in one of the writs before the single judge sought investigation by any other neutral agency. It also didn't ask for a CBI probe at the first instance. Despite this, the single judge transferred the case to CBI.

Another important point raised by Dave was that none of the petitioners before the single judge had asked for quashing the GO constituting SIT, but he quashed the GO.

"The single judge, at one stage said in the judgement that there is nothing wrong in the Chief Minister holding the press conference divulging the audio and video of accused inducing MLA Rohit Reddy, the complainant. But later in the judgement says that the audios and videos were illegally collected".

"The BJP and all the accused before the single judge are in tandem.. BJP is accused and accused are BJP'; because all the accused BL Santosh, B Srinivas, Tushar, Jaggu Swami approached the HC and got a stay on 41A CRPC notices. They never appeared before the SIT as they were shielded by the BJP".

Dave pointed out that the Centre had toppled governments in eight States, MP, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Goa and North Eastern States. It wanted to repeat its action in Telangana, which was meticulously thwarted here", he informed the court.

"The CM never invited the three accused to have a conversation with Rohit Reddy;they themselves approached the complainant and got themselves into the trap, which was planned and executed".

Gandra Mohan Rao, senior counsel appearing for Rohith Reddy, told the court that, the MLA had taken lot of risk in complaining against the three accused, who were working for BJP, despite knowing very well that the Central investigating agencies under the BJP may hunt him for his act, but still, to protect the elected BRS government, he lodged a complaint.

"All the accused in the case have approached the court, but none made him a party except in one writ petition and no notice was served on him. Hence, prayed the court to allow the appeals filed by the State and suspend the order of the single judge on this single ground. The learned single judge found fault with the third CD, which contained conversation between the three accused and the de facto complainant. Rohit Reddy".

"There was nothing more than that in the CD because the judge reserved for judgment on December 16 and pronounced orders on December 26. By this time, entire information, which was in the CD was in the public domain. The judge order, which says that this will cause prejudice to the petitioners is wrong," the senior counsel.

D V V Seetharama Murthy, senior counsel, appeared for accused Nandu Kumar, Ramchander Bharati and Simhyaji. He argued that Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy had passed orders on the criminal jurisdiction side as malafides are alleged in the investigation. Hence, an appeal against that order lies in the SC, not before the division bench".

"The single judge has exercised criminal jurisdiction under Article 226 and prayed to the division bench to dismiss the appeals filed by the State stating that they are not maintainable".

When Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked Dushyant Dave whether he has any objection to the contention raised by Seetharama Murthy, to which he said if the order is passed on criminal jurisdiction, then the order of the single judge should be suspended immediately as BJP has not sought quashing of FIR 455/2022; rather it sought transfer of probe to CBI.

The senior counsel argued that all the four MLAs and the complainant (Rohit Reddy), who are alleged to be poached, originally belonged to the Congress and later switched to TRS. The arguments are to continue in the next hearing.