Bail – Andhra Pradesh High Court Hears Anticipatory Bail Plea by YSRCP Leaders
Bail – A group of YSR Congress Party leaders, including Amadalavalasa constituency in-charge Chintada Ravikumar, has moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking anticipatory bail after a criminal case was registered against them in Srikakulam district. The petition, filed by Ravikumar along with 20 other party functionaries and supporters, also requests interim protection from arrest until the court delivers its final decision on the matter.
Petition Challenges Police Action
According to the plea submitted before the High Court, the case stems from events that followed the recent visit of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister and YSRCP president YS Jagan Mohan Reddy to the Srikakulam District Jail. During the visit, Jagan met former minister Seediri Appala Raju, attracting a significant number of party supporters to the area.
The petitioners argued that the crowd assembled on its own to welcome the party leader and that the gathering was not organised with any intention of disrupting law and order. They maintained that the large turnout reflected public support rather than any planned demonstration.
Allegations of False Implication
The petition claims that local police later initiated criminal proceedings against YSRCP leaders based on a complaint filed by Burja Police Station Sub-Inspector Mojjada Pravallika. The applicants have alleged that the case was registered without valid grounds and was aimed at targeting party leaders who were present in connection with the political visit.
In their submission, the petitioners contended that the allegations made in the complaint do not accurately reflect what occurred at the location. They argued that they have been falsely implicated despite not engaging in any unlawful conduct during the gathering.
Petitioners Deny Misconduct
The plea specifically rejects accusations that the leaders or party workers abused, threatened or physically obstructed the police officer concerned. Instead, the petition states that they merely appealed to people in the crowd to move aside so that congestion around the jail premises could be reduced and movement could continue smoothly.
According to the petitioners, their actions were intended to assist in managing the crowd rather than interfere with police duties. They asserted that there was no confrontation with law enforcement personnel as alleged in the First Information Report.
Alibis Presented Before the Court
The bail application also raises questions regarding the inclusion of several individuals as accused in the case. The petitioners informed the court that some of those named were not present at the location when the alleged incident took place.
To support their claim, they submitted that one of the accused is a practising advocate who was attending court proceedings at the relevant time. Another individual, the petition states, was in New Delhi and therefore could not have been present in Srikakulam during the incident. These details have been presented as evidence to challenge the prosecution’s version of events.
Interim Protection Requested
Along with the request for anticipatory bail, the petitioners have sought interim anticipatory bail to ensure they are protected from arrest while the High Court examines the merits of the case. They argued that such relief is necessary until the court reaches a final decision on their petition.
The High Court is expected to consider the submissions made by both the petitioners and the state authorities before deciding whether interim protection or anticipatory bail should be granted. The outcome of the proceedings will determine the immediate legal position of the YSRCP leaders named in the police case.