In a major setback to former CID Additional SP Vijaypal, the Supreme Court has rejected his anticipatory bail petition in the custodial torture case of Undi MLA Kanumuri Raghuramakrishna Raju (RRR). Vijaypal approached the Supreme Court to grant bail in the wake of the registration of an FIR against him.
When the Apex Court took up the matter on Monday, the lawyers representing the AP state government, MLA Raghuramakrishna Raju, and Vijaypal made lengthy arguments. After hearing their arguments, the bench of Justice Vikramanath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed Vijaypal’s petition.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued that there was no custodial torture and that Vijaypal had nothing to do with the arrest. Singhvi told the Supreme Court bench that if the incident took place in 2021, an FIR would be registered and an investigation would be conducted after three years. He said that no court has confirmed that Raghurama was tortured so far.
However, the AP government lawyer Siddharth Luthra explained to the bench how Raghurama was arrested and the Supreme Court granted bail and sent him to the Army Hospital for treatment. Luthra said that the Secunderabad Army Hospital had also provided a medical report as per the orders of the Supreme Court, which clearly contained all the details.
Raghuramakrishna Raju has not sat idle for a single day since 2021 and has been fighting the legal battle, his lawyer Suyodhan told the Supreme Court. When RRR was produced before the magistrate, he showed the injuries on his legs to the judicial officer. Suyodhan told the bench that those details were officially recorded.
He informed the Supreme Court that he had filed a writ petition in the AP High Court for an independent investigation on the instructions of the Supreme Court. The petition is still pending in the High Court. As arguments were being prepared to be heard once again, the Supreme Court asked Vijaypal’s lawyer Singhvi whether he had any answer to the details recorded by the magistrate. The Supreme Court concluded the hearing of the case after he did not give any answer.
