The judge criticized the investigator for irregularities in the arrest procedure and questioned how the release of the petitioner would affect the investigation. “This court is not seeking to interfere in the investigation but is addressing the illegality of the arrest process,” the judge clarified. Attorney General Palle Nageshwar Rao, representing the police, presented witness statements as directed by the court. He stated that the confessions of the 21st and 22nd accused, along with call data, were used to implicate the MLA, the petitioner, in the case.

Of Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman by Telangana High Court on Thursday heavily criticized the state police for relying on charges that “were not part of the grounds and reasons mentioned in the arrest report” to arrest the former Kodangal MLA Patnam Narender Reddy of BRS. The judge accused the investigating officer of irregularities in the arrest procedure and questioned how the petitioner’s release would affect the investigative process.

“This court does not intend to interfere in the investigation, only the illegality of the arrest procedure is being investigated,” the judge said.

Public prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao, representing the police department, produced the witness statements sought by the court. He said the confessional statements of the 21st and 22nd accused along with the call data records were the basis for implicating the MLA, the petitioner in the case, in the crime. The Attorney General also handed over a pen to the court stating that the video content would reveal Reddy’s involvement before and post the Lagacherla incident. Nageshwar Rao alleged that the videos would reveal Reddy provoking his associates to attack Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy and district officials if they visited the village. He further stated that another FIR was registered before the October 25 incident. On inquiring about the said FIR with the Public Prosecutor, the judge found that Reddy was not an accused in that FIR. The judge wondered if a pen handed into the courtroom without following the procedure for filing a supporting affidavit could be relied upon. The Attorney General was then reprimanded and sought the court’s permission to submit the relevant certificate for having relied on the pen. The judge refused to play the contents in the courtroom, stating that he would consider the contents of the pen after the relevant procedure was followed.

In a sharp reply to the charge by the Attorney General that Rs.10 crore was released by BRS working president KT Rama Rao for fighting legal cases in the incident, the judge asked him to produce evidence of such allegations. However, no such material was submitted to the court.
The Attorney General informed the court that several applications were filed by Reddy and his wife, to which Justice Lakshman questioned what was the illegality of pursuing legal action, including filing a bail application, seeking quashing of remand, several FIRs and seeking suo moto contempt for violating Supreme Court guidelines on arrest. In support of his claim that the procedure was followed, the Public Prosecutor referred to the arrest record and pointed out two signatures in the same place and stated that they belonged to Reddy and his associate Saleem, who had been informed of the arrest. The judge remarked that this was enough to show that the arrest was illegal.

The petitioner’s lawyer Gandra Mohan Rao also added that Reddy had already recorded his signatures being taken on blank papers before his arrest. Further, the Public Prosecutor alleged that accused No. 2, a YouTube content creator, was handpicked by Reddy to attack district officials. He said the petitioner assured his associates that they were supported by BRS party leaders K. Chandrashekhar Rao and KT Rama Rao. The judge asked the prosecutor why such allegations raised before the court today were not included in the arrest report which clearly states the reasons and reasons for the arrest.
As the Attorney General requested that the court consider the seriousness of the issue, the judge commented: “The seriousness of the issue must be considered before the arrest, but not after the arrest.”

The judge admitted with submissions made by the petitioner’s lawyer Mohan Rao that the arrest memo did not properly document the time and place of the arrest. When the prosecution tried to convince the court that the investigator had followed procedure and Reddy was arrested at his home, the judge verbally commented that “we were aware of the kind of investigators we have in the state”.
The judge also referred to a murder case that occurred in Medak and how the investigator had tried to discard the dying declaration of the deceased. Even when this Court directed the Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter, the SP had questioned the doctor on matters unrelated to the doctor. “This shows the kind of IPS officers we have in the department,” he remarked.

After hearing both sides at length, the court reserved the case for order.
In a related matter, a lunchtime motion was moved by Patnam Narendar Reddy challenging several FIRs. Justice B. Vijay Sen Reddy directed the apex court registry to list the case before the judge who hears MP and MLA cases.