Justice G. Sridevi of Telangana High Court on Friday posted to Tuesday to dispose of three writ petitions filed by Malkajgiri MP A. Revanth Reddy, who has been lodged in prison for past nine days, challenging his arrest.
The pleas, one seeking bail, another to set aside his remand order and the third to quash the FIR, will be heard on Tuesday for passing final orders, the judge said. Initially the judge posted the bail petition to Friday as it came up for hearing first.
The MP’s lawyer, however, appealed to the judge that Supreme Court senior counsel Salman Khurshid Alam Khan would appear for Mr. Reddy for the remaining two pleas and sought audience. When the senior lawyer rose to present his arguments, the government counsel said the other two petitions too be posted for Friday like the first one stating that time was required to file counter affidavits by the police.
Case not maintainable
The senior counsel, however, said the very criminal case registered against the MP under Section 188 of IPC was not maintainable. Citing a Supreme Court verdict, he told the court that Section 188 of IPC mandates that a senior police officer or an appropriate authority should give a written complaint to register a case under that section.
“The FIR states that a junior constable G. Venkatesh along with another constable J. Kumar informed Narsingi police Station House Officer about Revanth Reddy and others using drones to film a farm house,” the senior lawyer said. Based on this a criminal case has been registered against the MP. In the backdrop of the the apex court’s clear ruling on the mater, Section 188 of IPC cannot be invoked and hence the FIR should be quashed, Mr. Salman Khurshid argued.
Moreover, Mr. Reddy is a parliamentarian and has to attend the ongoing Lok Sabha session. The section invoked against the MP invites a maximum punishment of one month of imprisonment and up to ₹ 200 fine. Already, the public representative is in jail for nine days. If the court adjourns it for another week, the MP will be serving half the punishment for a case registered without any justification, he contended.
Political mileage
Public Prosecutor Pratap Reddy told the court that police did not arrest the MP but the latter surrendered himself before the police compelling the police to arrest him. At this stage, the judge asked the PP if the mandatory notice was served to the MP under Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code before the arrest.
When the PP replied that the MP surrendered himself, the judge asked if “it was not the duty of the police to serve the notice to the MP”. Mr. Salman Khurshid said issuing the FIR against the MP was travesty of justice. The PP, however, argued that the MP tried to “derive political mileage” out of the issue and his actions of using drone to film a “VIP’s property” posed threat to the VIP.
The senior counsel said, in that case, “release the MP and you derive the political mileage”.
