The Supreme Court has expressed serious displeasure and anger over the manner in which the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is conducting the investigation into the liquor transportation case that created a sensation in Andhra Pradesh. During the hearing on the SIT’s challenge to the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment in the Raj Kesireddy case, the apex court made strong observations about the SIT constituted by the Chandrababu Naidu government.
The Supreme Court questioned whether the SIT was going “too far” and observed that the manner in which the investigation was being conducted appeared suspicious.
Supreme Court to Examine SIT’s Actions First
The SIT approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment, which had ruled that the arrest of Raj Kesireddy was illegal.
During the hearing of the petition, the Supreme Court raised several questions over the SIT’s conduct. The court made it clear that it would first examine the investigation conducted by the SIT and the actions taken against Raj Kesireddy before considering the High Court’s judgment.
The Supreme Court also reportedly made it clear that the SIT must comply with the High Court’s order. Otherwise, the court indicated that the SIT’s petition could be dismissed.
Questions Over Police Custody
The Supreme Court questioned the SIT’s contradictory position regarding Raj Kesireddy’s custodial interrogation.
While the SIT claimed that Raj Kesireddy needed to be taken into police custody and questioned, the police reportedly stated that they were not ready to take him into custody. The court questioned how the SIT could seek custodial interrogation without making the necessary arrangements for it.
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the fact that the police were not prepared for custody even after a judge had issued a production warrant.
Why Was a Production Warrant Sought?
The apex court also questioned why the SIT sought a production warrant when Raj Kesireddy’s anticipatory bail petition was already pending.
The court observed that since Raj Kesireddy was already in custody, there was no immediate possibility of him absconding. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court questioned whether seeking a production warrant was necessary.
The court’s observations were in the nature of asking whether the SIT had gone too far in its approach.
Production Warrant and Arrest Warrant
The Supreme Court observed that a production warrant is similar to an arrest warrant in its effect.
The court questioned the SIT’s approach of seeking custody on one hand while the police were not prepared to take Raj Kesireddy into custody on the other.
The contradiction in the SIT’s actions became a significant point of discussion during the hearing.
What Has the SIT Found in Two Years?
The Supreme Court also questioned the progress of the investigation, noting that the case had been continuing for nearly two years.
The court questioned what the SIT had discovered during this period and observed that despite the investigation continuing for such a long time, several key aspects had apparently not been identified.
The court’s questions over the investigation, arrests and custodial procedures have now added a new dimension to the case, which has already become politically sensitive in Andhra Pradesh.
High Court Had Declared Raj Kesireddy’s Arrest Illegal
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had already ruled that Raj Kesireddy’s arrest was illegal. The SIT subsequently challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court.
However, instead of immediately considering the SIT’s plea against the High Court order, the Supreme Court questioned the manner in which the investigation itself was being conducted.
The apex court’s direction that the SIT must comply with the High Court’s order has increased interest in what steps the investigating agency will take next.
Supreme Court Issues Notices
During the hearing, the respondents informed the Supreme Court that they would file their counter in connection with the case. Following this, the court issued notices and adjourned the matter for further hearing.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s observations regarding the SIT’s investigation into the Raj Kesireddy liquor transportation case have triggered discussion in Andhra Pradesh’s political and legal circles.
After already facing difficulties following the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling, the SIT now faces another challenge following the strong observations made by the Supreme Court.
