In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India on February 25 granted anticipatory bail to YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) leaders, including Vijayawada East coordinator Devineni Avinash and former minister and MLA Jogi Ramesh. The decision came after the Andhra Pradesh High Court had previously denied their bail pleas in cases related to the alleged ransacking of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) central office and vandalism at the residence of Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu in 2021.
Avinash had been under interim protection since September last year. The charges against him include multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with armed weapons), 452 (house trespass), 427 (mischief causing damage), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 324 (causing hurt with dangerous weapons), 326 (causing grievous hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), 450 (house trespass for an offense punishable with life imprisonment), 380 (theft), and 120B (criminal conspiracy), among others.
Similarly, Jogi Ramesh faced allegations related to the attack on Chandrababu Naidu’s residence in Undavalli. His charges included Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 324, 506, 188 (disobedience to an order by a public servant), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease), and 270 (malignant act likely to spread infection) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly with a common object) of the IPC. Ramesh had also been under interim protection until the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Stresses Need for Government Negotiations to Reduce Costs of Rare Disease Medicines
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Manmohan, ruled that the petitioners must fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The court warned that failure to do so would lead to the cancellation of their anticipatory bail.
“The petitioners must cooperate with the investigation. Any non-cooperation will result in the vacation of the anticipatory bail order.” – Supreme Court
Furthermore, the Court directed them to surrender their passports and prohibited them from traveling abroad without prior notice to the investigating officer.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Avinash, argued that the fresh investigation had been initiated only after the change in the ruling government. He emphasized that three years had passed since the alleged incident and pointed out discrepancies in the allegations, highlighting that the injuries claimed by the complainants were minor compared to what was mentioned in the FIR.
“Three years after the alleged incident, fresh investigations have started only because of a political change in the government.” – Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal
Read Also:- Jamiat Ulama Challenges Centre's Remarks on Halal Certification Before Supreme Court
Sibal further contended that Avinash was not identified in the CCTV footage presented as evidence. However, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, opposed the plea, asserting that the accused had failed to cooperate with the authorities despite being granted interim protection.
Additionally, the prosecution alleged that Avinash attempted to leave the country. Sibal, however, refuted this claim, stating that his client had only traveled within India and had not informed the court due to a lack of awareness.
Brief arguments were also presented by Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave on behalf of Jogi Ramesh, supporting the plea for bail.
The Supreme Court’s anticipatory bail order extends to other accused individuals, including Nandepu Jagadeesh, Manyam Jagadish, and Gadela, among others.
Case Details: DEVINENI AVINASH Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SLP(Crl) No. 12659-12662/2024 & JOGI RAMESH Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SLP(Crl) No. 12567/2024
