SC scraps monitoring of probe by sitting judge

The Supreme Court has rejected the two petitions filed by the accused regarding the Moinabad farmhouse attempt to poach TRS MLAs’ case. The Supreme Court also lifted the monitoring of the Moinabad farmhouse case by a ‘sitting judge.’ Two petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. One was by Ramachandra Bharati, an accused in the Moinabad farmhouse case and the second was by others.

The petition said that the trial court had rejected the remand report. However, the High Court allowed the remand plea and the petition urged the Supreme Court to implement the trial court directions. Later, another petition was filed in the Supreme Court stating that there is no need for supervision by a sitting judge into the probe as the High Court had directed the SIT which was appointed by the State government to probe the case under the supervision of a sitting judge.

The petition also urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the case. But the state government opposed the argument of the accused in the Supreme Court. The state government made it clear that the trial court kept only the legal sections that the ACB had pressed aside but not the entire case.

The state government also reminded the SC about the rule that inquiry officers have to satisfy themselves with the evidence. The state government argued that the evidence proved that the accused tried to purchase the TRS MLAs and that the TS police arrested the accused while dealing with the case.

The state government told the Supreme Court that it had appointed the SIT to ensure that the inquiry is done independently. The state government also informed the SC that the High Court has imposed restrictions on the probe stating that the probe should be held under the High Court Single Bench and a sitting judge and that reports regarding the progress of the case should be submitted to the court in a sealed cover within the stipulated time.

The Supreme Court bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath conducted the trial separately regarding the two petitions and dismissed the petitions. However, the bench stated that the accused can file a petition in the High Court seeking bail based on the trial court’s directions on the remand report and the court will take a decision depending on the merits of the case. However, the bench said that the SIT probe should be held in a free and fair manner and that it is not right to impose restrictions on the probe.

The Supreme Court bench also kept the Single Judge’s directions that reports should be submitted in a sealed cover and that the probe of the SIT should be held under the supervision of a Sitting Judge. The Supreme Court bench also directed that the writ petition, which was pending with the Single Judge and others should be decided within four weeks.