Raj Kasireddy, the main accused in the AP Liquor Scam case, did not get relief in the Supreme Court. He filed a petition in the Apex Court challenging his arrest in this case. A bench headed by Justice Parthiwala gave its verdict on Friday and dismissed his petition. It also dismissed the petition filed by Kasireddy’s father Upender Reddy, who alleged that the rules were not followed during his son’s arrest.
The court, which heard these two petitions last Monday, reserved its verdict. The verdict stated that the case is being disposed of completely without going into the merits of whether the arrest was legal or not. The petition filed by Kasireddy, who is residing in Hyderabad under CrPC 160, has been sent to a larger bench, stating that the AP CID does not have the authority to issue notices to him, who is staying in Hyderabad, in the liquor scam.
It was said that no decision will be taken on it. The bench made it clear that matters like regular bail should be looked into in the High Court. The High Court had also previously refused to interfere with the ACB court orders. Kasireddy’s father Upender Reddy challenged that case in the Supreme Court on the 9th of this month.
The bench comprising Justice Parthiwala and Justice R Mahadevan heard the petitions filed by Kasireddy and Kasireddy’s father together. Senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Agarwal argued on behalf of the AP government, while senior advocates Mahesh Jatmalani, Ponnavol Sudhakar Reddy and Ramesh participated on behalf of the petitioners.
Mahesh Jatmalani, who argued on behalf of Kasireddy, argued that Kasireddy’s arrest was illegal and that the AP CID did not have the authority to issue summons to a person in another state under CrPC 160.
He argued that Kasireddy was arrested at the Hyderabad airport itself, even though he had said that he would voluntarily attend the hearing on April 21, and that all the sections that were not present at the time of his arrest were included in the remand report in a conspiracy.
Mahesh Jatmalani argued that he was arrested under sections 409 and 420 of the IPC, but the Prevention of Corruption Act was included in the remand report, and that although Raj Kasireddy was not a government employee, he had previously worked as an IT advisor to the CM. Kasireddy has nothing to do with the liquor policy.
The government’s lawyer argued that he did not raise any objections during the arrest, but only in the petition filed in the Supreme Court.