VIJAYAWADA: Bihar cadre IPS officer M Sunil Kumar Naik was questioned on the fifth day at Guntur CCS police station on Monday.
Investigation officer AR Damodhar questioned him on the role of the latter in arresting the former Narsapur MP and present deputy assembly speaker K Raghuram Krishnam Raju without adding his name in the FIR registered in the CID during the YSRCP regime.
After the change of guard in the state, It may be recalled that Raghu Rama Krishna Raju, who alleged that he was subjected to custodial torture, lodged a complaint with Guntur police.
Following the complaint, the police registered a case and initiated an investigation.
According to sources, it is learnt that investigation officer AR Damodhar conducted scene reconstruction at CID regional office where the complainant K Raghuram Krishnam Raju was questioned and allegedly tortured during the custody.
The High Court adjourned the hearing on the anticipatory bail petition filed by IPS officer Sunil Kumar Naik to March 12 in connection with a custodial torture case registered by the Nagarapalem police in Guntur district.
The court also reiterated that the officer must cooperate with the ongoing investigation and extended its earlier order directing him to appear before the investigating officer.
While hearing the petition, Justice Venkata Jyotirmayi Pratapa issued the latest orders while hearing the anticipatory bail plea on Monday.
During the proceedings, counsel for Sunil Kumar Naik, Narasipuram Ashwini Kumar, informed the court that his client has been appearing before the investigating officer as directed by the court and is cooperating with the probe.
The petitioner’s counsel further argued that Naik was not initially named as an accused when the police first registered the case based on Raghu Rama Krishna Raju’s complaint.
He contended that Naik was later added as an accused after a change in the state government, alleging that the decision was politically motivated. The counsel also maintained that Naik had no role in the arrest, custody, or alleged torture of the complainant.
Representing the police, senior counsel Siddhartha Agarwal submitted that Naik had already been arrested in Patna in connection with the case. He argued that since the petitioner had already been arrested, the anticipatory bail petition was no longer maintainable.
Agarwal further stated that the reasons for the arrest had been provided to the accused in writing and that once a person has been arrested, they must seek regular bail rather than anticipatory bail.