VIJAYAWADA: The High Court has questioned the rationale behind the police case against former Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and four others in connection with the death of a man named Singaiah in Guntur district.
Justice K Srinivas Reddy directed Nallapadu police not to take coercive steps against the accused until the next hearing on Tuesday. The case stems from an alleged accident involving a vehicle in Jagan’s convoy. The judge questioned why passengers were charged, noting that in such incidents, the driver is typically held accountable. He remarked that accidents, even in controlled environments like the Kumbh Mela, are not always preventable and asked whether anyone would intentionally leave an injured person behind. Petitions seeking quashing of the case were filed by Jagan, YSRCP MP YV Subba Reddy, former ministers Perni Nani and Vidadala Rajini, and Jagan’s secretary K Nageswara Reddy. Senior advocate Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, representing the petitioners, pointed to discrepancies in the investigation, particularly the shifting of blame from one vehicle to another.
Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas alleged reckless driving and a failure to report the incident. He said there was no political agenda but maintained that the convoy violated police instructions and the crowd was mismanaged. He requested time to submit preliminary evidence.
HC grants relief to ex-YSRCP MLA in firecracker case
The High Court has granted interim relief to YSRCP leaders, including former MLA G Srikant Reddy and 17 others, by directing the Lakkireddipalle police in Annamayya district to refrain from taking any precipitate action in a firecracker-related case. The court adjourned the hearing for two weeks.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Lokesh of Kurnoothula Agraharam, alleging he was injured by firecrackers set off by YSRCP members during the general elections. Challenging the charges, the petitioners sought to quash the FIR, arguing the case was baseless and filed a year after the incident. Senior advocate S Sriram, representing them, claimed the sections invoked were irrelevant.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Sai Rohit argued the complainant suffered injuries and was promised medical aid that was not delivered. He said the probe is in its early stages, and permission for the firecrackers must be verified.