Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently granted interim protection from arrest to YSR Congress leader S Bhargav Reddy but asked him to approach the High Court for further relief in cases filed against him in connection with alleged organised crime in Andhra Pradesh.

Dealing with a writ petition filed by the petitioner (S Bhargav Reddy), a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said the contentions raised on his behalf, could be effectively raised before the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of BNSS, (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, which has now been repealed).

The petitioner, who claimed himself to be the head of social media affairs of YSR Congress Party – a political party which is primarily active in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, approached the top court invoking jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, inter alia, alleging that the State of Andhra Pradesh and its authorities were misusing Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2023.

This was being claimed by the petitioner who alleged that multiple FIRs (details of 6 FIRs have been given) had been registered against him for various offences.

His counsel senior advocate Kapil Sibal claimed that contrary to the legislative intent of tackling serious organised offences through Section 111 of BNS, the said provision was being misused as a tool to stifle the voice of opposition party.

Sibal, along with senior advocates Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy and Siddarth Dave attempted to substantiate the allegations made by the petitioner against the State and its authorities.

On the other hand, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, for the State of Andhra Pradesh referred to some material which, according to him, prima facie, showed how the petitioner was actively involved in an organised crime, which was a continuing offence. He further pointed out that the petitioner had already approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and some of his petitions were pending in which even ad-interim relief had also been granted.

"Having heard Senior Counsel for the parties, it seems to us that the relief sought by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition, and the contentions raised on his behalf, can be effectively claimed/raised before the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., which has now been repealed)," the bench said.

Consequently, the bench disposed of the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on merits of the allegations or the counter allegations, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking the same relief as prayed for in the instant writ petition.

"It goes without saying that the High Court will hear both sides and may pass appropriate order as it may deem fit," the bench said.

In the case, the bench ordered since the petitioner was apprehending his immediate arrest, which could disable him to approach the High Court, "the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of two weeks to enable him, meanwhile, to approach the High Court."

The bench clarified it will be the complete discretion of the High Court, after considering the merits and demerits of the issue, to extend or decline the interim protection as granted to the petitioner.

Case Title: S Bhargav Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors