New Delhi, Nov 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on YSRCP leader and former MLA Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy and his brother Pinnelli Venkatarami Reddy for gaining access to the case diary in the double murder case involving two Telugu Desam Party (TDP) workers.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while hearing their anticipatory bail pleas, sharply questioned how the accused managed to procure such sensitive investigation material at this stage. The Court said the situation reflected a serious breach.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, expressing displeasure, told the accused, “Go back to jail. Your custodial interrogation is necessary. We are amazed by the reach the accused has. How did you get the case diary? This is unacceptable.”
Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave and Shoeb Alam appeared for the Pinnelli brothers. Counsel for the complainant objected to the filing of a Section 161 CrPC statement by the accused, pointing out the irregular access to investigation records.
The defence claimed the documents were obtained legitimately, but the Bench rejected the argument outright. Calling the act “tampering, plain and simple,” Justice Mehta observed that the case diary appeared to have been “served on a platter.”
Finding no grounds for protection, the Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications and granted the accused two weeks to surrender. In 2024, the Supreme Court had restrained Pinneli Ramakrishna Reddy from entering the vicinity of the vote-counting centre.
A vacation Bench of Justices Arvind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta passed the order in an SLP filed by Namburi Shankar Rao, challenging the interim anticipatory bail granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Apex Court had criticised the High Court for granting what it termed a “highly erroneous and needless” protective order to Pinneli, who was accused of damaging Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
Despite video evidence, police had initially registered the case against unknown persons, prompting the Court to remark, “Where was the question of bail? If we don’t stay it, it will be a mockery of the justice system.” Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Pinneli, assured the Court that he would not enter the counting area, following which the Bench refrained from staying the interim protection.
