New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to YSR Congress’s Lok Sabha member K. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju in a sedition case, with the court saying that prima facie he was ill-treated while in police custody Holding that High Court “ought” to have considered the bail plea by Raju instead of sending him to the trial court, a bench comprising Justice Vineet Saran and Justice B.R. Gavai saddled Raju with a number of conditions including that he will not speak to the print and visual media on the issues that form part of the case against him.
Noting that there was nothing in the case that required Raju’s custodial interrogation as the Crime Investigation Department (CID) of the AP police had proceeded against him and filed an FIR after an inquiry, and everything said by him (Raju) was a matter of record, the court directed the MP to co-operate with the investigation and be present before the investigating officer as and when required.
“We are of the opinion that the charges (against Raju) are not such that custodial interrogation is required,” Justice Saran said while pronouncing the order granting bail to Raju.
The court directed him to furnish a bail bond of Rs 1 lakh and two surities of like amount. At the outset of the hearing, the court read from the report of the Army Hospital at Secunderabad which listed a number of ailments that Raju suffered including fracture in the toe of his left leg and swelling,
Grabbing the opportunity, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi told the court that the report by the Army Hospital vindicated their assertion that Raju was tortured while in police custody during interrogation and the fracture was a consequence of the third degree methods used against him.
Describing the alleged torture of Raju in police custody as a “state sponsored terrorism,” Rohatgi said that the MP has been charged under IPC Section 124A so that he does not get bail.
Section 124A of the IPC reads: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with...”
Senior counsel Dushyant Dave appearing for Andhra Pradesh took the court through the speeches of Raju in an attempt to demonstrate that he (Raju) was creating disaffection and trying to incite people based on caste and religion.
Referring to the report of Raju’s medical examination by a government hospital in Guntur and the one by the Army Hospital, Dave wondered how could it be that there was no fracture on the X-rays done by the government hospital on the direction of the AO High Court and that there was a fracture in the X-ray done at the Army Hospital.
At this Justice Saran asked Dave if he was suggesting that Raju inflicted injuries on himself, including the fracture. Telling the court that he had full respect for the Army as an institution, he said the report submitted to the court was not conclusive.
The top court had on May 17, 2021, directed the medical examination of Raju at the Army Hospital. Raju was examined by a medical board of three doctors — two of them Colonels and one a Lt Colonel.
