AP high court suspends remand rejection in Srihari case

Vijayawada: The high court on Friday suspended the trial court order rejecting the remand to Pudi Srihari, YSRCP general secretary, and G Girish Kumar Reddy. The counsel for Srihari, Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, raised objection, stating that an ex parte order cannot be given in the case, and sought protection from arrest till further hearing.Kuppam Urban Police moved high court challenging the remand rejection orders given by the Kuppam court in the case registered against Srihari and Girish over objectionable posts made on chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu with morphed photographs. The high court heard the petition as a lunch motion.Arguing on behalf of the police, Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas said that the police tried to serve notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS Act, but the accused persons declined to take the notices. Police mentioned the reasons for arrest in the remand report, but the court below did not take it into consideration and rejected remand in a mechanical manner on the ground that all the offences alleged are punishable with less than seven years.The advocate general further said that the high court earlier ruled that the police can arrest accused even in cases of below seven years' punishment if the accused persons do not cooperate with the investigation. He said that the police arrested Srihari only after conducting a preliminary inquiry. The language used in the post was not political criticism but in the nature of stoking regional tensions. Srinivas further submitted that Srihari is maintaining 14 mail IDs and posting on various social media platforms.Considering the submissions of the advocate general, the high court suspended the trial court order. Later, Sudhakar Reddy rushed to the court and raised objections and sought protection from arrest. The high court said that it was only an interim direction suspending the trial court order and did not set aside the same.In separate proceedings before Justice Ravinath Tilhari and Justice Medamalli Balaji, the counsel for Srihari's driver argued that the police did not follow the procedure while arresting him. The high court observed that there was prima facie evidence suggesting that police were not following norms. The bench observed that the arrested persons are being produced before the court only after filing habeas corpus petitions. The high court said that police must follow the procedures, especially when it involves personal liberty of the individuals, and directed the police to file counter affidavit.