High Court Questions CID on Non-Arrest of Seetharamanjaneyulu
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has raised concerns regarding the non-arrest of Seetharamanjaneyulu, the former Intelligence Bureau chief and the second accused in a case filed by Mumbai actress Kadambari Jethwani. The court asked the CID why no action was taken against him despite not having filed for anticipatory bail. It highlighted that the suspension order by the government mentioned his availability, so it asked if he was accessible or if he had absconded and demanded detailed clarification on the matter.
The Advocate General stated that arresting power solely vests with the Investigating Officer (IO). According to him, there is no such sequence which must be followed while effecting arrest, and an arrest is only made if there is a necessity for its purpose in order to discover the facts. The AG further contended that the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused would hamper the investigation as custodial interrogation is necessary to unravel the conspiracy related to Jethwani's arrest. After hearing the arguments, Justice VRK Kripasagar declared that the verdict on the bail petitions will be pronounced on January 7.
Several people, including IPS officer Kantirana Tatha, Vishal Gunni, former Vijayawada West Zone ACP Hanumantha Rao, Ibrahimpatnam CI/IO M. Satyanarayana, and advocate Venkateswarlu, have filed anticipatory bail petitions in the High Court in connection with the Jethwani case.
At the time of the hearing, Jethwani's legal representatives, advocates Vasireddy Prabhunath and Narra Srinivasa Rao, accused the police of acting illegally to obstruct evidence in a rape case Jethwani had filed against an industrialist in Mumbai. They alleged that the IPS officers involved had treated Jethwani inhumanely, with the harassment orchestrated by the former state government, the Chief Minister's Office (CMO), and key IPS officials. They also argued that one of the accused, Seetharamanjaneyulu, did not seek anticipatory bail, despite the fact that he was the very heart of the case.
The senior lawyers on behalf of the petitioners pleaded that their clients were lawfully doing their job and were already enough evidence has been collected, hence their custodial interrogation was unnecessary. They also challenged the authority of the Director General of Police (DGP) to transfer the investigation to the CID, stating that IPS officer Vishal Gunni was coordinating with Mumbai police under instructions from his superiors. The defense also clarified that advocate Venkateswarlu had visited the Police Commissioner's office solely for legal discussions related to the case.
