The Supreme Court explained that the accusation of the political bias against the ruling regime itself could not ensure a predictable bail and rejected protection against two accused in the case of fraud in Andr Pradesh fraud on Friday, May 16, 2025 | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Supreme Court explained that the accusation of the political bias against the ruling regime itself could not ensure a predictable bail and reject protection against the arrest of two accused in the case of fraud in Andr Pradesh fraud on Friday (May 16, 2025).
The JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan bench noted that the awarding of the predictive bail of K. Dhananjaya Reddy and P. Krish Mohan Reddy, who served in the former Chief Minister Yaganmohan Reddy during the previous YSRCP regime, would come to the investigating agency “.
The defendant claimed that their case was activated by political anger and bias by the current regime in the state.
“To some extent, (the accused person) could find out the case of the political Mala Fide, but this in itself is not a subjugation of a preliminary deposit overlooking other materials,” Pardiwala justice said, dictating the order for the bench.
The court said political bias can have its own legal consequences, but later. Now, in the phase of considering the question of a foreshadowing deposit, the court must only be limited to whether the case of the Prima Facia has been made against the accused state.
Warns against pressure
However, the court warned the state in accepting any “third degree tactics” against the accused. He warned the state of attempting to forced, pressure or to influence witnesses in this case.
“Tomorrow, if any material is announced to any court, whether it is the High Court or the Supreme Court, it will be considered very seriously,” the Top Court said.
The court expressed its expectations that the probe agency would conduct a fair, impartial and transparent investigation in accordance with the law.
The bench stated that regular requests for bail submitted by the defendants, if arrested, transported and sent into judicial custody, will be considered their own merit.
The defendants could freely approach the Supreme Court if they feared any bad treatment in the hands of the state.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikas Singh, and Ma Nazki, who appeared for the accused, claimed that their clients were retired by public employees who were accused in the “well -hatched conspiracy”. They cooperated with the investigation. Their statement was recorded. They accused the probe agency of accepting “dubious tactics” to extract the confessional statements of witnesses.
Outflow
The leaders of Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthr and Siddharth Agarwal, who appeared for Andhra Pradesh, faced the fact that Prima Facia had already been presented against the accused, and the investigation was in the key phase. They argued that there was an abuse of public funds in the range of 3,000 GBP Crore. They would need the accused for interrogation in custody.
In the interconnected petition, the director of Bharati Cements Balaji Govindappa, the accused represented by the leader Siddharth Dave, noted the bench that he was “absurd” for an investigating officer to seek his police ties after being injured in court custody.
“Once the accused is removed into his judicial custody, can the investigating officer move to return to police custody?” The pardiwal justice asked.
The court stated that Mr GovindaPpy’s request for a regular deposit, if shifting it, would be considered as his own merit.
Published – 16 May 2025 17:33
