Govts. Add Section 124A IPC As A Matter Of Course To Make The Case Serious,Non-Bailable: Mukul Rohatgi To Supreme Court In Raghu Rama Krishna Raju Case

The Supreme Court on Monday directed YSR Congress Party MP Raghu Rama Krishna Raju to be medically examined by a board of three doctors of the Army Hospital, Secunderabad, Telangana in the presence of a judicial officer to be nominated by the CJ of the Telangana High Court.It may be noted that the sitting MP has alleged custodial torture after he was arrested on Friday (May 14) on the charges of sedition and was taken to the Crime Investigation Department (CID) office in Guntur district. It has been alleged that Raju, who is an outspoken critic of Andhra Pardesh Chief Minister Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy (his own party head) has been indulging in hate speeches against certain communities and promoting disaffection against the Government, which will cause loss of faith in the Government and also cause disturbances.It may be noted that the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Saturday dismissed his bail plea noting that "This Court, as well as the Sessions Court, have got concurrent jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition directly without moving the same before the trial Judge, where entire material including remand report will be available on his production."Further, Taking into account a Letter alleging indiscriminate beating of the MP by CID police, Mangalagiri, Guntur, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Sunday (May 16) constituted a Medical Board to examine him. The Division Bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice Lalitha Kanneganti of the High Court constituted a Medical Board headed by the "Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Guntur." The second Member of the Board would be the Head of Department of General Medicine of Government General Hospital, Guntur, while the third Member would be a Government Doctor, nominated by the Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Guntur.The vacation bench of Justices Vineet Saran and B. R. Gavai was hearing two SLPs against these orders of denial of bail and examination by a government hospital. The bench also required the state to file its reply to the pleas in two days' time, posting the matter for Friday.The following is the exchange as it transpired before the Supreme Court on Monday:'Ingredients of 124A not made out; Governments, as a matter of course, add 124A to make offence serious, non-bailable'- Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi"This is a matter of extraordinary proportions. The basic facts are that the petitioner is a sitting MP of the ruling party itself. He has been critical of the leadership of the party and the state government for some time now. Last year, he had to move the Delhi High Court to get official security because of internal threats from various quarters", began senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the petitioner."I must say something. I am appearing for the state. I have a respectful submission that if you want to hear it, then keep it on Friday. I will file my short reply and put the case diary and other documents on record", interjected senior advocate Dushyant Dave, for the state of AP.Opposing this request, Mr. Rohatgi advanced that he is praying for two reliefs today- for ad interim bail and for medical examination by a neutral hospital or a private hospital."He has been critical of the chief minister for some time now. That is a matter of open record. Last year, he had to get security officially from the central government through the Delhi High Court because of threats by various elements in the party itself. That is the background. What happens is this – it appears that the police authorities ordered some kind of an enquiry. Obviously, I take it that it is an enquiry in which my client is not associated. That enquiry resulted in a report to the CID branch of the police that this petitioner has made these kinds of critical remarks about the government, critical of the chief minister, trying to say that the chief minister is partial to 1 community and not to another community", continued Mr. Rohatgi.He added that, however, there is no allegation that his client ever "incited a rebellion or a call to arms or violence". "That is the requirement of 124A (sedition). That has been settled for 50 years, for 100 years. The governments, as a matter of course, are adding 124A to make out a serious offence. All the other offences are bailable. They add 124A so that the man does not get bail and the court feels it is a very, very serious offence", advanced Mr. Rohatgi.He continued to submit that the additional DG ordered the enquiry and received a report in a couple of days and based on that report, he himself ordered the FIR- "The FIR is not on the instance of some other complainant that I have given this speech or that speech! The suo motu case is based on the enquiry by DG (CID), he himself is the complainant, he is the person who directed the enquiry!""The cat is now out of the bag because my client is on TV making critical comments against the government about the COVID situation. 2 TV channels and their...

Govts. Add Section 124A IPC As A Matter Of Course To Make The Case Serious,Non-Bailable: Mukul Rohatgi To Supreme Court In Raghu Rama Krishna Raju Case

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

Govts. Add Section 124A IPC As A Matter Of Course To Make The Case Serious,Non-Bailable: Mukul Rohatgi To Supreme Court In Raghu Rama Krishna Raju Case

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers