Live
- Equipping the next generation
- Today is World Kindness Day: A celebration of compassion and unity
- AI-driven dataset to reveal new insights around diabetes
- Researchers develop new portable knee rehab device to revolutionise post-surgical therapy
- Why Australia's Binar CubeSats Burned Out Early: Solar Activity's Devastating Impact on Satellites
- Tyagaraja’s Legacy Celebrated in Ballet
- Priyanka Chopra shares what she loves to do after a long day at work
- Shraddha Kapoor reveals an interesting detail about people with big foreheads
- South Africa expects G20 summit to strengthen multilateralism
- AAP govt deprived residents of better health infra: Vijender
Poachgate: HC directs advocate Pratap to appear before SIT today
Orders police not to arrest him
Hyderabad: Justice BollamVijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High court on Thursday directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) chief not to arrest Pogulakonda Pratap, advocate, who was issued notice by SIT to appear before it on November 25 in connection with TRS MLAs poaching case.
However, he asked Pratap to present himself before SIT on November 25 and comply with directions issued in notice under Section 41A CrPC. The judge gave liberty to SIT to approach the court, if the petitioner does not comply with directions in the notice.
Vinod Kumar Deshpandey, senior counsel appearing for Pratap, challenged the notice contending that nowhere it says the advocate is an accused, a suspect or he has any material relating to the case."
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 possibility that the petitioner will erase crucial data from his cell phone".
"Non-appearance of the petitioner before SIT is scuttling of investigation, which is against the Supreme Court judgements", they averred.
