While hearing Telegu Desam Party MLA Raghu Ramakrishna Raju’s plea for transfer of case pending against ex-Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, the Supreme Court today expressed that it has already passed directions for expedition of trial and will not dictate the trial Court any further with regard to any discharge application or otherwise.
The matter was before a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan, which declined a request for disposal of discharge application stated to have been preferred by Reddy (and other accused).
Advocate Balaji Srinivisan, appearing for Ramakrishna Raju, apprised the court that as per the other side, discharge applications are being heard on day-to-day basis. He contended that the said applications should be disposed of. “I understand that wheels of justice move slowly, but they can’t stand still”, added Srinivisan.
Noting that directions for expediting trial had already been passed in the case, Justice Khanna orally observed, “We are not going to control the trial Court, I think enough orders are there. A lot of your apprehensions have been taken care of. Whatever I have to say, I have said to CBI also. We are not going to dictate…I don’t know what are the grounds of discharge, I don’t know what are the reasons why it’s taking so much time…it’s for the trial court to decide. There are already instructions and directions issued as far as politicians are concerned. There are already directions issued for expeditious disposal. Those directions will continue. Special Courts have been constituted for that purpose”.
The judge further referred to Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi’s submission that a Division Bench (of the Telangana High Court) is also monitoring the case. However, Srinivisan relied on a High Court order to say that nothing was happening.
In response, Justice Khanna exclaimed, “But there can’t be two proceedings, why should we be controlling? There will be 100-200 cases of politicians in the country, then should we start controlling all of them?”.
At this point, on behalf of Reddy, it was informed that Ramakrishna Raju now belongs to elected members category (as he won an MLA seat in Andhra Pradesh) and has CBI cases pending against him for defrauding banks to the tune of Rs.800 crores. “While he comes and preaches before your Lordships, he must first tell your Lordships what’s happening in his cases”, commented Sr Adv Niranjan Reddy.
Srinivisan countered this submission, saying, “they have a problem with the messenger, not the message”.
Hearing the counsels, Justice Khanna concluded the proceedings by saying, “We only want that the matter should proceed. We are not going to get into anything like that. But we are not going to control the proceedings in the trial.”
The matter has been re-listed in the week commencing November 11, 2024.
The genesis of the case lies in a 2011 PIL which sought CBI investigation into alleged deeds of corruption by Reddy and others. The allegations were that Reddy exercised undue influence over his late father Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, to confer illegal benefits to some persons, like allotment of land etc. These persons in turn paid bribes to Reddy in the form of buying shares in his companies at highly inflated premia as quid pro quo.
Pursuant to the allegations, High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed CBI to investigate and a case was registered. The agency filed a chargesheet naming Reddy as accused No.1 and cognizance was taken in 2012.
On 27.05.2012, Reddy was arrested. He moved the CBI Court for bail and was granted the same by order dated 23.09.2013. Thereafter, by order dated 11.12.2015, some of the bail conditions against Reddy were relaxed.
Almost eight years after bail was granted to Reddy (in 2021), Ramakrishna Raju approached the CBI Court praying for cancellation of his bail. He alleged that Reddy, who had by then become Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, misused his freedom and was attempting to influence witnesses by virtue of his office. It was further claimed that Reddy violated his bail conditions.
The CBI Court ruled in favor of Reddy and dismissed Ramakrishna Raju’s petition. It was held that the petitioner did not place any record to show that Reddy was threatening the witnesses by using police machinery or violated any of the bail conditions.
Aggrieved by this order, Ramakrishna Raju approached Telangana High Court seeking cancellation of Reddy’s bail and praying that he be remanded to judicial custody to ensure a speedy trial. During these proceedings, the CBI informed that since rejection of similar prayer by the CBI Court, there had been no change in circumstances.
Considering the parties’ submissions, the High Court ruled in favor of Reddy and declined to cancel his bail. “Merely saying that respondent No.2 has been abusing his official position by giving important posts/offices to other co-accused to tamper evidence by influencing witnesses is not adequate to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2. Further, saying that respondent No.2 has no regard for democracy and judiciary is no ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2. The supporting affidavit is conspicuous by complete absence of any details whatsoever essential for considering a prayer for cancellation of bail. No single instance of violation of the bail conditions has been mentioned by the petitioner”, it said.
Challenging the High Court order and seeking transfer of the case, Ramakrishna Raju approached the Supreme Court in 2023 with two petitions. On the transfer petition, notice was issued on 03.11.2023, when the Court expressed doubts about maintainability yet deemed it important to explore why the trial was taking so long.
Insofar as the petition challenging the High Court order which denied cancelling bail, notice was issued by the Supreme Court on 24.11.2023. In January this year, the Court called for an affidavit from CBI explaining the delay in trial and directed that the trial proceed expeditiously.
Case Title: RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS., Diary No. 41443-2023 (and connected case)
