HC grants bail to TDP spokesman Pattabhiram

Judge asks why police did not show same excitement when Judges were abused

October 23, 2021 11:21 pm | Updated 11:21 pm IST - Vijayawada

TDP leader spokesman K. Pattabhiram after his release from Rajahmundry Central Jail.

TDP leader spokesman K. Pattabhiram after his release from Rajahmundry Central Jail.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Saturday granted bail to Telugu Desam Party spokesman K. Pattbhiram, whose alleged objectionable comments on Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy sparked attacks on the opposition party’s offices across the State, including the main one near Mangalagiri in Guntur district.

The issuance of bail is subject to the execution of a bond for ₹20,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Hearing Mr. Pattabhiram’s bail plea on Saturday, Justice Kanneganti Lalitha said she was not justifying the remarks passed against the Chief Minister, but would at the same time question why the police did not show the same excitement when the High Court Judges were abused.

She turned down Advocate-General S. Sriram’s request to let a counter to be filed by the investigating officer and wondered why the police arrested the accused after issuing a notice under Section. 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which made it clear that there was initially no intention to detain on charges framed against him under Sections.153-A, 505 (2) and 504 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Sriram insisted that with two conflicting statements made about the proceedings that led to the arrest, a counter by the investigating officer was necessary, but Justice Lalitha did not concur with him.

She observed that whatever be the offence, the procedure contemplated ought to had been followed, and in many cases the court had seen that the police had not been complying with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

Mr. Pattabhiram’s counsel Posani Venkateswarlu said the report of the de facto complainant on the basis of which a case was registered by the Governorpet police, did not contain ingredients or allegations that constituted an offence under the above Sections.

He maintained that the constitutional functionary (Chief Minister) does not come under any group or clause for the purpose of Sections.153-A and 505 (2).

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.