Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Alleged Custodial Torture Of Andhra MP Raghu Rama Krishna Raju

A Bench of Justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai  issued notice in the case K.Bharath Vs Union of India and others.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Petitioner, requested the Court to delete all the Respondents in the matter excepting Union of India and sought for the CBI to be impleaded.

This request was opposed by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh, who submitted to the Court that as a CBI investigation was sought, the State should remain a party. To this, Rohatgi responded that he had every right to delete parties at his risk and Dave had no locus in the matter.

"I am amazed by these proceedings", Dave exclaimed.

The Court recorded Rohatgi's submission and allowed for the parties to be deleted – "Issue notice. Shri Rohatgi seeks for Respondents No. 2 to 6 to be deleted. Let the same be done by the parties at their own risk. Matter to be heard after 6 weeks".

The bench told Dave that the Petitioner was doing the deletion of parties at his own risk that the petition might be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Matter will be heard after 6 weeks.

Last week, the Supreme Court had granted bail to the YSR Congress MP, who had been arrested by Guntur CID on May 14 for alleged sedition and promotion of communal hatred over his speeches.

In its order passed on May 21, the Bench of Justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai had noted that as per the reports submitted by the Army Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein the MP had been examined, a prima facie opinion could be formed that the Petitioner had been tortured in police custody.

During the hearing of bail plea, Rohatgi had pointed out that as per the medical report, there were several injuries on the Petitioner's body, including a fracture. He had urged the Court to take suo moto cognizance of his injuries and direct a CBI inquiry into the same.

"My allegation of torture in office of CID is proved. This is what they are doing to a sitting MP. Imagine what will they do to citizens," he remarked.

The Bench however stated that Rao is merely a Petitioner in its eyes and that the Court is not concerned if he's a sitting MP or an ordinary citizen.

Rohatgi then clarified, "This matter needs to be investigated by the CBI. My point is if they're doing this to the sitting MP, then they can do this to anyone."

At this juncture, Dave had suggested that these injuries may be "self-inflicted" by the Petitioner during the time gap between Top Court's direction for medical examination and the Petitioner reaching the Army Hospital. He pointed out that there was injury in the medical report submitted by Government Hospital prior to direction made by the Top Court.

"If police wanted to torture him, would they do it on the second toe of the foot? You have immense knowledge, you know how things work. No police would ever treat an MP in this manner," Dave said.

"It would be absurd to argue that someone within one evening will do all of this to himself," Rohatgi rebutted.

Dave had then submitted that the State will not contradict the report of the Army, however, it must be noted that the report in question is inconclusive and does not conclude any injuries of gravity.

He stated that the report of Medical Board which submitted its report to the High Court and that of the Army Hospital which the Court is perusing today are correct. However, the injuries may have been self-inflicted.

"This gentleman when he was asked to travel to the hospital in an ambulance, he refused. He travelled in his car… All throughout he was waving at people, showing his foot and giving interviews. There was no injury to his foot then.The MP's conduct to travel in his own car for 300 km with his own security and his foot up like that. That may have caused it. Nobody would treat MP like this," Dave had told the Bench last week.