In a big setback to rebel YSR Congress party parliament member from Narasapuram constituency Kanumuru Raghu Ramakrishna Raju, the Andhra Pradesh high court on Wednesday granted permission to Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department to prosecute him in various cases other than the sedition case.
The high court dismissed a petition filed by Raju seeking that all the cases filed by the CID against him be quashed and that directions be given to the CID to stop further action in this regard.
The high court ruled that the CID can interrogate Raju under various sections, other than the one under Section 124 A (sedition).
The CID can question Raju at Dilkusha Guest House in Hyderabad in the presence of his lawyer only from 10 am to 5 pm.
It further said the CID should confine its questioning only to the cases filed against the MP, but not with regard to other issues.
It also directed that Raju should not be called to the CID offices and everything should be done only in the presence of his lawyers.
“If the CID police violate any of these directions from the court, stringent action would be taken against the police officials concerned,” the high court warned.
Last week, the high court heard the arguments of the CID on a petition filed by Raju seeking a blanket stay on the FIR registered against him under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code in the light of the Supreme Court’s order staying all the proceedings in sedition cases.
Advocate General Subrahmanyam Sriram pointed out that the apex court had made it clear that if there were any other offences along with sedition, the courts might allow the proceedings to go on about the rest of the offences without any prejudice to the accused.
He said the petitioner was not entitled to any protection in addition to what was granted by the Supreme Court while granting him bail. Moreover, the apex court laid a condition in its bail order that the MP should join the investigation when called upon accompanied by his counsel.
He also argued that the offences under 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth or residence) and 505 (1)(b) (making statements amounting to mischief) were independent of 124A.
The CID, in its affidavit, said the high court cannot stifle the legitimate prosecution as per Article 226 or Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code at this threshold stage.
