On July 18, the Supreme Court of India directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file, a sealed cover, a copy of the chargesheet and the original case files pertaining to the murder of former Congress MP YS Vivekananda Reddy.
The court’s Division Bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi, was hearing a plea related to YS Vivekananda Reddy’s murder, including a plea moved by his daughter challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the prime accused and her cousin, YSRCP MP YS Avinash Reddy.
The CBI informed the court that it filed the chargesheet, as per the last order, on June 30, however, the agency was yet to file the copy of the chargesheet. Furthermore, the CBI submitted that it needed two weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit on its behalf.
The court granted the central agency two weeks’ time to file a reply. The court further directed the CBI to file a copy of the chargesheet along and original case files in a sealed cover, along with the reply. “Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation has prayed for and is granted two weeks’ time to file a reply. The CBI will, along with the reply, file a copy of the charge-sheet. The CBI will also produce before this court the original case files in a sealed cover. Copies of the reply will be served on the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and they are granted liberty to file their response to the counter-affidavit within three weeks from the date of service,” the court pronounced in its order.
Background
YS Vivekananda Reddy, Congress MP and brother of Andhra Pradesh CM YS Rajasekhara Reddy, was found murdered in his residence on March 15, 2019. The State’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) probed the case before it was handed over to the CBI. The CBI filed a chargesheet in the case in October 2021 and a supplementary chargesheet in January 2022. Notably, YS Vivekananda Reddy was also the uncle of current Andhra Pradesh CM YS Jagan Mohan Reddy.
In November 2022, the top court transferred the trial from Andhra Pradesh to a CBI court in Hyderabad, noting that concerns about receiving a fair trial and investigation in Andhra Pradesh were reasonable. YS Vivekananda Reddy’s daughter moved the Supreme Court challenging the pre-arrest bail granted to YS Avinash Reddy.
According to the CBI, YS Avinash Reddy and his father, Bhaskar Reddy, were involved in the disappearance of evidence. The agency further stated that they were attempting to persuade the witnesses. However, the accused father and son denied any involvement in the murder of their relative. Notably, Bhaskar Reddy was recently arrested on April 16.
Suneetha Reddy has alleged that YS Avinash Reddy, along with other accused, has “successfully” tampered with evidence by “destroying the scene of offence in the presence of the state police and had propagated the story that the deceased had died due to a heart attack.”
In April, the CBI summoned YS Avinash Reddy after arresting his father. YS Avinash Reddy moved the high court seeking anticipatory bail. The high court heard YS Avinash Reddy’s application and reserved its order for April 25, and granted the prime accused interim protection till then.
However, the Supreme Court held that the high court’s order ‘stultified’ the investigation while setting it aside. The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, “The findings of the high court are clearly premature. Having due regard to what has been stated by CBI, we are of the view that high court has misapplied itself and passed an extraordinary order. An order of this nature will harm the investigation. There is no warrant for the high court that a person investigated should have questions in written or printed form. Such orders of the court allow grave prejudice to investigation.”
In May, the Telangana High Court granted pre-arrest bail to YS Avinash Reddy, stating that there was no direct evidence available to prove his participation in a larger conspiracy. The court said, “From the investigation done so far, there is no allegation at any point of time CBI claimed about interference of the petitioner in the investigation and involved in tampering of evidence and threatening the witnesses and the complainant, except the allegation touching the destruction of scene of offence,” in its order. Thereafter, a special leave petition was moved before the Supreme Court, challenging the high court’s order.
