Live
- Astronauts Stuck in Space: Sunita Williams and Barry Wilmore's Mission Extended Until February 2025
- 'Muslims don't vote for JD(U)', says Union Minister Lalan Singh
- St. Joseph’s organises literary fest
- Indian GenAI startups see 6 times surge in funding in Q2
- Revanth is a liar: Errabelli
- Big B pens heartfelt note for Abhishek’s work in latest film: You are Arjun Sen
- BGT 2024-25: India on brink of victory in Perth as Australia reach 227/8 at tea
- SC grants 4 weeks more to Centre to decide Balwant Singh Rajoana’s mercy plea
- Lucky for me to end up with PBKS under head coach Ponting: Stoinis
- Students pay the price for govt apathy
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.
