The host of Supreme Court verdicts and legal points being cited were turning the arguments in the anticipatory bail petition of former TV9 Chief Executive Officer Ravi Prakash cumbersome.
Making this observation after hearing arguments in the case for the second consecutive day on Tuesday, Justice G. Sri Devi of Telangana High Court directed the counsels for the petitioner and the respondent to present written submissions of their contentions and grounds. Supreme Court senior counsels — Harin Raval engaged by Telangana police and Diljit Singh Ahluwalia appearing for Mr. Prakash — presented their arguments for over four hours.
“Since investigation into the case against Prakash facing three criminal cases is in nascent stage, his custodial interrogation is required,” said lawyer Harin Raval opposing the bail petition. Stating that Mr. Prakash was an accused in three cases and evading police, he argued that an absconding person does not deserve anticipatory bail. Contending that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional cases, the senior lawyer told the court that investigation was not yet complete in Mr. Prakash’s case. Alleging that the former CEO of TV9 had fabricated documents, material evidence including several documents were yet to be seized from him and hence his custody was important for the police, he said that police had traced the link of emails between a lawyer, Mr. Prakash and the latter’s friend S. Sivaji which suggest that they conspired to defame the past and present promoters of TV9.
Though Mr. Prakash appeared before the investigators after the Supreme Court denied him bail, he didn’t cooperate with them. Citing ill health, he preferred not to answer questions of the police, the lawyer said. Lawyer Harin Raval presented to the court screenshots of mobile phone messages received by one of the witnesses from Mr. Prakash. Through these messages, the accused tried to threaten the witness, he charged.
Mr. Prakash’s counsel Diljit Singh sought to know why the senior counsel was not showing the same screenshots of messages to him. “How come police could not track or trace the person who had sent the messages,” he said. He said the dispute Mr. Prakash had with the promoters of TV9 was a private one.
“Why is the State taking so much interest in a private litigation. They are spending lakhs of rupees of public money to engage a senior lawyer to fight a dispute between two private persons,” he argued. He contended that his client had a right to secure anticipatory bail even if there was prima facie evidence against him.
Meanwhile, Sontineni Sivaji, one of the accused in the case, filed a petition in the HC seeking to quash the FIR issued against him by the Cyber Crime wing of Cyberabad police.
