The revision appeal submitted by the Special Investigation Team was denied on Monday by Justice D Nagarjun of the Telangana High Court.
Hyderabad: The Special Investigation Team (SITrevision )’s petition in the MLA poaching case was denied by Justice D. Nagarjun of the Telangana High Court on Monday.
The SIT’s letter accusing BL Santosh, Thushar Vellappally, Jaggu Swamy, and attorney B Srinivas was rejected by the ACB court.
The State has petitioned the High Court, challenging the same as unlawful. For the accused and suggested accused in the case, senior attorneys L. Ravichander and Ramchander Rao made an appearance. A specific directive is still expected, though.
Justice K Surendar granted the stay in favour of BL Santosh against Section 41-A notifications issued to him by SIT in the case till January 23 in a related matter.
The attorney for BL Santosh claimed that the High Court decision delegating the probe to the CBI remained on hold while the State sought a certified copy and asked the court for an extension of the stay.
Case Disha
Supreme Court Advocate Vrinda Grover continues to be heard by a two-judge bench made up of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N Tukaramji in the Disha encounter case. Several public interest lawsuit claims have been launched, alleging that the encounter involved false deaths and extrajudicial executions.
According to Vrinda Grover, the three-person Sirpukar Commission, which the Supreme Court appointed, did not accept the police’s claim that they used an encounter as a form of self-defense. She said that the report from the commission was adequate to file a formal complaint (FIR) against the cops engaged in the incident.
She maintained that the Supreme Court had ordered FIRs to be lodged in situations where Commissions of Inquiry had recommended action against the police, citing the ruling in the Manipur encounters case. the inquiry and the FIR is a constitutional and legislative requirement of the state, she claimed, criticising the State administration for failing to gather the evidence from the appropriate angle.
Grover argued that the SIT did not act impartially and omitted important evidence. He claimed that the Commissioner of Police had held a press conference following the encounter even before the inquest was conducted, recoveries were made, and before the FIR was sent to the Magistrate in an effort to influence the public.
She emphasised filing a complaint against the officers under Section 302 of the IPC and the Juvenile Justice Act in light of the Commission report and contested facts. The matter was postponed until January 23 at the Advocate General’s request so that the state could respond.
