It is known that YSRCP member and Narasapuram MP Raghu Ramakrishna Raju was arrested by the AP CID last week, for his continuous attacks on the YSRCP government, and for the defamation of the government in the public’s eye, through media and social media. Medical tests were conducted on RRR at the GGH hospital in Vijayawada, following which he was taken to the Guntur jail. He was later brought to the Military hospital in Secunderabad for further medical examination.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court of India has granted conditional bail for RRR today. The SC said that RRR is not to speak in media or social media and that he is supposed to give his full support to the CID for further investigation of the case. The SC granted RRR bail, saying that the charges filed on him are not serious enough to not warrant bail. The SC also said that RRR can attend the investigations and speak in the presence of his lawyer. Furthermore, it instructed the concerned officials to serve notices at least one day prior to investigation, to the petitioner (RRR).
Senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi and Dushyanth Dave argued on behalf of RRR and the AP government respectively. Dave said that the CID gathered 45 videos in which RRR made hate speeches and tried to instil fear in the minds of the people of AP, against the government. He said that RRR cannot go to the SC for bail, when the verdict based on merit is still pending at the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and when the HC itself asked the MP to go to lower courts first. He said that he’s not disagreeing with the Army Hospital’s medical reports, but said that the medical report that GGH submitted is also right.
On the other hand, RRR’s lawyer, Rohatgi, said that this non-bailable case was filed against RRR simply because he went against AP CM Jagan, and filed for a bail cancellation case against Jagan. He said that RRR was tortured while under the CID’s custody, which was evidenced by the fracture in his toe beside his toe finger. Rohatgi questioned the SC about the safety of the common man in the state when the state of an MP is itself in such jeopardy.
The next hearing of the case has been postponed to Tuesday.
