VIJAYAWADA: The high court on Saturday granted bail to TDP spokesperson Kommareddy Pattabhiram, who was arrested on charges of making abusive comments on the chief minister.
The high court observed that the police did not follow the procedure contemplated under 41A of CrPC and the same was also pointed out by the lower court.
The high court also asked why the police are so enthusiastic in the case registered for abusing the chief minister and why they are not showing the same kind of enthusiasm in other cases where high court judges, the advocate general, and other constitutional functionaries are being abused every day.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti further observed that 'rule of law' should be one and should be equal for everyone.
"Everyone, including the chief minister, are not above law. There are procedures to be followed even if the chief minister, or judges of high court, or advocate general are abused. Everyone has a reputation and it is the duty of the police to protect everyone's reputation," she said, while adding that hundreds of cases are coming to the high court complaining about the behaviour of police in the state.
'Self-contradictory remand report submitted by investigating officer'
She added that she has been dealing with such cases on a daily basis sitting in the criminal bench. The remand report submitted by the investigation officer is self-contradictory, the court observed.
On one hand it is stated that the accused person did not cooperate during arrest, and on the other hand he was served 41A of CrPC, Justice Lalitha
noted, and asked the advocate general who appeared for the police as to why 41A CrPC was issued if the intention was to arrest the accused, and why he was arrested after issuing 41A notice.
Advocate general S Sriram said though the original intention of the police was to arrest Pattabhiram, they issued 41A CrPC as it was insisted by him.
Later, as he refused to accept the notice, police arrested him, Sriram said, adding that Pattabhiram made abusive comments against the chief minister and tried to promote animosity between castes and different groups by addressing the name of a former minister with his caste identity.
He opposed the bail in the interest of public tranquillity. Arguing on behalf of Pattabhiram, Posani Venkateswarlu said none of the sections are applicable to the alleged crime. As the sections included in the case do not constitute a crime that can be punishable for more than seven years, 41A CrPC notices should have been served, he said.
Though cops claim they served the notices under 41A CrPC, they did not
follow guidelines, he added. Considering the arguments, Justice Lalitha granted bail to Pattabhiram, observing that police did not follow the procedure contemplated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar case.
