On Monday, Justice D Nagarjun of the Telangana High Court dismissed the revision petition preferred by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the MLA poaching case. The memo filed by the SIT before the ACB court for implicating BL Santosh, Thushar Vellappally, Jaggu Swamy and Advocate B Srinivas was dismissed.
The State had approached the High Court, challenging the same as illegal. Senior counsels L Ravichander and Ramchander Rao appeared in the case on behalf of the accused and proposed accused. However, a detailed order is still pending.
In a related matter, Justice K Surendar extended the stay in favor of BL Santosh against Section 41-A notices issued to him by the SIT in the case until January 23.
The counsel for BL Santosh stated that the High Court order transferring the investigation to the CBI was on hold until the State obtained a certified copy and asked the court for a stay extension.
The Disha case
In the Disha encounter case, a two-judge panel comprised of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N Tukaramji continued hearing Supreme Court Advocate Vrinda Grover. A slew of public interest litigation cases were filed, accusing the encounter of being as fake and extra-judicial killings.
According to Vrinda Grover, the Supreme Court-appointed Sirpukar Commission disbelieved that the police resorted to the encounter in self-defense. She stated that the commission’s report was sufficient to take cognizance of the incident and file an FIR against the officers involved.
ALSO READ: Telangana High Court Allows Sharmila to Resume Padyatra
PIL regarding household survey dismissed by Telangana High Court
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Manipur encounters case, she argued that the Court had directed that FIRs be filed in cases where Commissions of Inquiry recommended action against the police. FIR and investigation are a constitutional and statutory obligation of the state, she argued, and she faulted the state government for failing to collect evidence in the appropriate perspective.
Grover claimed that the Commissioner of Police held a press conference after the encounter even before the inquest was held, recoveries were made, and the FIR was sent to the Magistrate in an attempt to influence the public, and that the SIT did not act impartially and left out crucial evidence.
She emphasised filing a case against the officers under Section 302 of the IPC and the Juvenile Justice Act in light of the Commission report and disputed facts. The court adjourned the case to January 23 for state response, at the request of the Advocate General.
(This story has been sourced from a third-party syndicated feed, agencies. Raavi Media accepts no responsibility or liability for the text’s dependability, trustworthiness, reliability, and data. Raavi Media management/ythisnews.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content at its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.)
