VIJAYAWADA: YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, former Chief Minister and YSRCP chief, filed a petition in the AP High Court on Thursday, questioning the inaction of the Centre and the State government on his plea to reinstate Z+ category security.
He claimed that the failure to provide him adequate CRPF or NSG protection violated constitutional norms and requested an independent reassessment of his threat level to restore Z+ security. If unavailable, he sought approval to use his own bulletproof vehicle. Post-government change, his security was significantly curtailed without prior notice, disregarding ongoing risks. Accusing the State of shirking its responsibility to safeguard public figures, Jagan urged the court to mandate Z+ security restoration. The matter is set for a Friday hearing.
Sajjala Bhargav Reddy & others get HC relief
The AP High Court provided relief to Sajjala Bhargav Reddy, former YSRCP social media head, and other activists in a case over social media posts, questioning the police’s use of BNSS Section 111 (organized crime).
The court ruled that Section 111 requires a chargesheet from the past 10 years, which was not present, making the case legally untenable. It found the Section 111 charges against Bhargav Reddy and others unwarranted based on initial evidence, and instructed police to follow BNSS Section 35(3). Justice N Vijay issued these directives on Wednesday, calling for prompt government action.
No HC interim protection to former minister Kakani
The AP High Court deferred to June 16 the decision on whether individuals accused in SC/ST cases can directly seek anticipatory bail in the High Court or must first approach the SC/ST special court.
On Thursday, the bench of Justices Kanchireddy Suresh Reddy and V Sujatha denied former minister Kakani Govardhan Reddy’s request for interim protection against stringent police action.
Kakani filed the anticipatory bail petition in an illegal mining case registered by Podalakuru police, later compounded by an SC/ST case.
Kakani’s counsel O Manohar Reddy urged interim relief to halt police action, but the Advocate General cited the Supreme Court’s TA Hameed vs M Viswanathan ruling, limiting the bench’s authority.
Upholding this precedent, the bench refused interim orders and set the next hearing for June 16.