Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

BRS MLA Poaching: CM Himself Branded Accused As Conspirators, Can’t Say SIT Is Probing Case Fairly: Telangana HC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Thu, Dec 29, 22, 17:43, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5057
Bharatiya Janata Party vs Telangana\ deemed it fit to transfer the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

While noting that the Telangana State Chief Minister, K Chandrashekar Rao himself branded the accused in the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLA poaching case as conspirators and therefore, it can’t be said that SIT probe is being done in an unbiased and fair manner, the Telangana High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Bharatiya Janata Party & Ors vs State of Telangana in Writ Petition Nos. 39767, 40733, 42228, 43144 and 43339 of 2022 that was pronounced as recently as on December 26, 2022 deemed it fit to transfer the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

What is most significant to note is that in its 98-page order, the Court minced no words to say categorically that in the political tussle between the BJP and the TRS party, the Constitutional and statutory rights of the accused seem to have been forgotten. It must be mentioned that the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice B Vijaysen Reddy made these observations while dissolving the Special Investigation Team (SIT) which was probing the case till now and ordered the CBI to conduct a de novo probe into the matter.

In its order, the Court noted that the SIT in the case was constituted to cover up the lapses of the investigation officers, however since the Chief Minister of the State had made public the investigation, CDs/Material, the same would cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused about the fair and unbiased investigation, giving the court a reason to transfer the probe. The Court said very clearly that:
When accused are condemned publicly and branded as conspirators levelling serious allegations by none other than the Hon’ble Chief Minister by conducting Press Meet and circulating the videos to the important Constitutional Functionaries, even before the charge sheet is filed and at the initial stages of the investigation, it cannot be said that investigation is being done in an unbiased and fair manner.”

It also merits mentioning that the Court also questioned as to how the CM got access to the material collected by the SIT. We must note that since the State government couldn’t give any explanation for the same, the Court observed that to say that no prejudice is caused to the accused is unreasonable and unacceptable. In these circumstances, the Court opined that serious prejudice had been caused to the accused, who are branded publicly as conspirators, thereby depriving them of their rights to effectively defend the criminal proceedings and avail their legal remedies under the law.

At the very outset, this remarkable, refreshing, rational and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of the Telangana High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice B Vijaysen Reddy sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
F.I.R. No.455 of 2022 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 171-B read with Sections 171-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’), on the file of the Station House Officer, Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate on a report dated 26.10.2022 lodged by respondent No.8 in W.P. No.39767 of 2022. The said report is as under:

I, Pilot Rohit Reddy, MLA, Tandur Assembly Constituency of Vikarabad District, inform you that I am an MLA from TRS party and representing the above constituency. It is to further inform you that on 26-09-2022, one Ramachandra Bharati @ Satish Sharma native of Delhi and one Nanda Kumar resident of Hyderabad both of them belonging to BJP met me and negotiated with me to not to contest as candidate from TRS party and to join in BJP by resigning from TRS party and to contest in the next elections from BJP for which they offered me an amount of Rs.100 Crores (Hundred Crores) and also offered to give Central Government civil contract works and other High Central Government positions for monetary benefits and lured me to join in BJP.

They also stated that if I am not joining in BJP there will be criminal case and raids by E.D./CBI and the Telangana Government led by TRS party will be toppled by them. Since the above inducement of bribe by a political party to me is unethical, undemocratic and encouraging corruption and polluting the Politics, I decided not to entertain such unethical practice by the above persons.

Today i.e. on 26-10-2022, they again contacted me and informed me that they are coming in the afternoon hours to my farmhouse located at Azeez Nagar, Moinabad for negotiation and also informed me to mobilise some other TRS MLAs for offering them bribe of Rs.50 Crores each to join BJP. They also further induced me and other MLAs to receive amounts and to discharge their public duties improperly and dishonestly so that the Telangana Government led by TRS party is destabilized.

They informed that three persons namely Ramachandra Bharati @ Satish Sharma of Delhi, one Nanda Kumar and one Simhayaji Swamy of Tirupathi would come to my farm house to finalize the deal of joining in BJP by resigning from TRS party. Therefore, I request you to kindly take necessary legal action against the above persons and the persons behind this conspiracy for offering me bribe to resign from TRS and also to join in BJP by indulging in unethical and undemocratic ways of offering huge amounts as bribe.””

W.P. No.39767 of 2022 :

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that:
2.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner - Bharatiya Janata Party, Telangana, represented by its State General Secretary Mr. Gujjula Premender Reddy on 27.10.2022 seeking writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondents in undertaking biased and unfair investigation in F.I.R. No.455 of 2022 with a sole intention to frame the petitioner political party and damage its reputation at the instance of the ruling party dispensation as being illegal, arbitrary and in gross violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the settled principles of free and fair investigation and consequently to transfer the investigation in F.I.R. No.455 of 2022 from the file of respondent No.5 to respondent No.7 - the Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Director, New Delhi or to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct enquiry in the said crime in a free and fair manner.

BRIEF AVERMENTS:
2.2. The election commission announced 03.11.2022 as the date for bye-election for 93 - Munugode Assembly Constituency and counting of votes was scheduled on 06.11.2022 vide its schedule for bye election No.ECI/PN/73/2022 dated 03.10.2022. During campaign, as the BJP Party was getting overwhelming response from the public of Munugode Assembly Constituency, the ruling TRS Party from the beginning of the election campaign was trying to disrupt campaign of the BJP Party and making several efforts to thwart campaigning in the constituency, but, in spite of the same, the voters of Munugode were responding positively towards the BJP Party.

The BJP Party has substantial base in the Telangana State and the people had been rooting for the BJP party as the next alternative to the present dispensation of the TRS Party. On 26.10.2022 evening, few channels, which publicly support the ruling Government, carried out news that four (4) MLAs of the ruling TRS Party are being tried to be lured and poached by the members of the BJP to join the BJP and discussions regarding the same are happening at a farmhouse in Moinabad.

The said news was repeatedly aired in the said few channels giving out details of the alleged operation. Thereafter, in the late hours of 26.10.2022, respondent No.2 along with respondent Nos.3 and 4 - the Commissioner of Police Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar Division, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad respectively arrived at the said farmhouse in Moinabad. Even before the police have arrived at the said farmhouse, certain news channels were already present at the farmhouse and were telecasting live pictures from the farmhouse. Upon respondent No.3 and other officials visiting the farmhouse and on a preliminary search and enquiry at the farmhouse, police apprehended three (3) persons alleged to be workers of the BJP as they were allegedly luring the four (4) TRS MLAs to join its party.

2.3. The four (4) TRS MLAs were left scot free and surprisingly escorted by the respondents to the Hon’ble the Chief Minister’s residence at Pragathi Bhavan. Thereafter, respondent No.3 stated in a press meet that the three accused have offered four TRS MLAs a Rs. 100 crores cash each to join the BJP in the wake of Munugode bye-election. On further enquiry, it was revealed that respondent No.8 - Mr. Pilot Rohith Reddy, who is an MLA from Tandur Assembly Constituency belonging to TRS Party, lodged a complaint on 26.10.2022 at 11.30 a.m. to the Station House Officer, Moinabad alleging that the accused persons have approached him on 26.09.2022 and tried to lure him to join the BJP by resigning from TRS Party and to contest in the next elections from BJP for which he would be offered a huge amount of Rs.100 crores; and consequently FIR No.455 of 2022 was registered with Moinabad Police Station.

2.4. The above complaint is politically motivated with ulterior motive to defame and demoralise the BJP in the ensuing by-elections of Munugode Assembly Constituency. The complaint is lodged by respondent No.8 is staged and is firmly believed by the BJP that the complaint has been lodged at the behest of the Hon’ble the Chief Minister Mr. K. Chandra Shekhar Rao, who is also President of the TRS Party, other State Ministers and senior leaders of the TRS Party. The facts and motive behind lodging the complaint can only be unearthed by conducting an enquiry either by the CBI or by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) or by a sitting Judge of the High Court. The BJP fears that investigation would not be conducted in a fair and unbiased manner by the respondents, who are acting on the instructions of the State Government, and therefore, the investigation may be transferred to a neutral agency which is not under the control of the State Government.”

Be it noted, the Bench then very plainly states in para 34 holding quite commendably that:
In a system governed by law, every person or authority is subservient to Constitutional principles. The safeguards provided to the accused persons under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been reinforced from time to time by various authoritative pronouncements, some of which are referred above. Protection given to the accused from very inception when he is arrested by the police officer and mandate under Article 20 of the Constitution of India read with Section 167 Cr.P.C. to produce the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest is a pointer to emphasise that from very inception of the criminal proceedings, the accused has Constitutional and statutory safeguards.”

Most significantly, the Bench minces no words to hold in para 42 that:
In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that serious prejudice is caused to the accused, who are branded publicly as conspirators, thereby, depriving their rights to effectively defend the criminal proceedings and availing their legal remedies under law. These events run contrary to the fundamental concept of criminal law jurisprudence that every accused is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty. As noted above, the learned counsel for the respondents have not pointed out any provisions of the Cr.P.C. nor offered any plausible explanation or theory as to how the third video CDs/pen drives which have been seized under mediators’ report panchanama on 27.10.2022 in F.I.R. No.455 of 2022 have been handed over to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Who has handed over the same, when and how, remains a mystery. In spite of that, to say that no prejudice is caused to the accused is unreasonable and unacceptable. If action of the police is not in accordance with the procedure established by law, even at the initial stages, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not shirk its responsibility to set rights things. The contention of the learned counsel for the State - Police that the petitioners have remedies under law and they may challenge the proceedings at the appropriate time and the investigation at this nascent stage should not be interfered cannot be sustained. The rights of the accused stand as a high pedestal in the criminal law jurisprudence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ankush Maruti Shinde’s case (Supra 24). Having found serious lapses and leakage of investigation material/CDs, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents - State that this Court should lay off its hands merely because the investigation is at preliminary stage. Rights of the accused to have fair and unbiased investigation are defeated in this case which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Most forthrightly, the Bench then mandates in para 43 that:
In the opinion of this Court, constitution of SIT under G.O. Ms. No.63 which act under the Government will not alter the situation, more particularly, when an authority none other than the Hon’ble Chief Minister himself has openly circulated the videos and branded the accused and members of the organised crime as conspirators. The entire episode and turn out of events is something unprecedented and incomprehensible and unhesitatingly, this Court holds that the accused have made out a case for transfer of investigation. So far as other points raised by the learned counsel regarding violation of G.O. Ms. No.268 etc., and that investigation by regular police is not permissible under the PC Act are not considered as the pleadings to that effect in the writ affidavits are very vague; in any event, they are not necessary to be dealt with in the light of the above observations.”

As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 44 that:
44.1 For the aforesaid reasons, W.P. Nos.40733, 43144 and 43339 of 2022 are allowed. G.O.Ms. No.63 Home (Legal) Department dated 09.11.2022 appointing SIT is quashed. The investigation in FIR.No.455 of 2022 shall be forthwith transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, who shall proceed with de novo investigation taking into consideration the report lodged by Mr. Pilot Rohit Reddy in FIR.No.455 of 2022, observation panchanama dated 26.10.2022 and mediator’s panchanama dated 27.10.2022. The remaining investigation done by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar Division; the Station House Officer, Moinabad Police Station, and the SIT are also quashed.

44.2. As discussed above, W.P. No.39767 of 2022 is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

44.3. In view of the orders in W.P. No.43144 of 2022, no orders are required to be passed in W.P. No.42228 of 2022, and therefore, the same is closed.”

Finally, the Bench concludes by directing in para 45 that:
At this point of time, a request is made by the learned Advocate General for the State to suspend this order till its certified copy is furnished. Therefore, this order is suspended, as prayed for. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions stand closed.”

All told, we thus see that the Telangana High Court very rightly on ground of protecting the rights of the accused to have fair and unbiased investigation decided very rightly to transfer the case to the CBI from SIT. The Court minced just no words to hold that the constitutional and statutory right of the accused seem to have been forgotten. Most damningly, the Telangana High Court also made it clear that the Chief Minister by himself branding the accused as conspirators and circulating videos to the important Constitutional functionaries even before charge sheet is filed and at the initial stages of investigations has compromised the right of the accused to be investigated in an unbiased and fair manner thus unabashedly putting the accused in the most disadvantageous position! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top