HYDERABAD: YS Avinash Reddy, YSRCP MP from Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, filed a writ petition in Telangana High Court on Thursday with a plea to stay further examination of him in YS Vivekananda Reddy's murder case.
The petition also prayed to direct the respondents to not take any coercive steps pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Avinash Reddy also requested the Court that further examination should be conducted in the presence of his advocate. Audio and video recording of the entire questioning by the agencies should be done, the Kadapa MP said in his petition.
“I submit that in a case where the second respondent (CBI) has gone on record to attribute motives and actions to me on public record, his action in deciding to not record my examination in spite of a specific request from me is illegal,” Reddy said in his petition.
In his petition, Avinash Reddy also pointed out that A-4 in YS Vivekananda’s murder case - Shaik Dasthagiri - was never arrested by the respondents and his anticipatory bail application was unopposed by the respondents and anticipatory bail was granted to A4 in October, 2021.
He also stated that the present investigation against him was being carried out only on the basis of the statement issued by Dasthagiri. “It is submitted that the investigation being conducted by the investigating officer (IO) is not fair and impartial and there is material to conclude that from the beginning I am being implicated in the crime without there being any admissible evidence and by only twisting facts to frame me as being culpable for the crime”, the Kadapa MP said in his petition. He also stated that he was not an accused in the case to date, yet the IO has been treating him as an accused in the crime.
Avinash Reddy also stated, “It is pertinent to submit that in addition to essentially framing me as an accused on public record, the IO has also ignored certain crucial facts and has only proceeded in a manner which will fit in with his preconceived conclusion that I have conspired to commit the murder of my uncle. The IO has failed to investigate the crime in an impartial and effective manner”.