Poachgate: Defence lawyer sees conflict of interest and wants case given to CBI

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday heard a batch of petitions seeking to transfer the ‘poachgate’ case probe to the CBI or a High Court-appointed special investigation team (SIT), from the SIT constituted by the state government.

Mahesh Jethmalani, Supreme Court senior counsel, appeared for the three accused — Ramachandra Bharati alias Satish Sharma, K. Nandu Kumar and D.P.S.K.V.N. Simhayaji — virtually before Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy. The court permitted him to do so as Jethmalani is a nominated Rajya Sabha member and was unable to come to Hyderabad to argue the case in person as Parliament was in session.

Jethmalani submitted that the state machinery in the case was working under the Chief Minister. He contended that, as the state government was interested in this case and the Special Investigation Team would fail to conduct the investigation in an impartial manner.

He pointed out that the higher police officers themselves were witnesses, the investigation agency and the prosecutors. He questioned the intention of the complainant MLA Rohith Reddy and pointed out that the legislator himself had defected from the Congress to the TRS and was now levelling poaching allegations against the BJP.

Citing various apex court judgments, senior counsel sought the investigation be transferred to the CBI or any other agency not under the control of state machinery.

Jethmalani argued that the alleged luring of TRS MLAs, trap and the probe was of a “maligned nature.” He said the Cyberabad police proceeded with the investigation covertly as they had prior information that the three accused would meet the complainant, senior counsel said.

He pointed out three lacunae, the first being that the FIR was lodged at 11.30 am on November 26 following the trap laid by the police and no money was found at the scene. TFIR was sent to the magistrate the next day, on November 27, at 6.30 am. This violated Section 157 CrPC, which stated that the FIR pertaining to the crime should reach the magistrate at the earliest.

Jethmalani said the second lacuna was that the police did not serve the three accused notices under Section 41A CrPC. The third lacuna, he said, was that the evidence pertaining to the poachgate case —audio, video and other material — had reached the state Chief Minister. “How did this material travel to the Chief Minister, the entire judiciary of the country,” Jethmalani asked.

All these indicated clear unethical bias on the part of the police. The court adjourned the case to December 13.