[BREAKING] Supreme Court grants Raghurama Krishnam Raju bail in sedition case; holds that he "may have been" ill-treated in police custody

The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to YSR Congress leader and Member of Parliament (MP), Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju in the sedition case registered against him..A vacation bench of Justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai formed a prima facie opinion that Raju was possibly ill-treated while in police custody. "In our view, considering the injuries as reported by the Medical Board of the Army Hospital, we can prima facie form an opinion that the appellant may have been ill-treated while in police custody," the Court said..The Court also stated that the charges against Raju would not require custodial interrogation."Charges against the petitioner (Raju) are not such that custodial interrogation would be required. Considering the totality of the plea and the health condition of the petitioner since he has undergone open heart surgery, we deem it fit that petitioner be enlarged on bail," the order stated. .While granting bail, the Court directed Raju to cooperate with the investigation and present himself when called upon by the investigation officer. The Court also prohibited him from giving any interview to the print or visual media on this subject. "Please ask the petitioner to not display injuries to the press, else it will be an obstruction of justice. We will take serious view of the same," the Court said. The appellant shall not address the press (print or visual media) on any of the subjects which relate to this case and the pending proceedings, the order passed in this regard said. .Raju was also asked to furnish a bond of Rs. 1 lakh and two sureties of the same amount before the trial court within 10 days as condition for bail. He was also ordered not to tamper with any evidence or witness..The Court was hearing a plea filed by Raju against Andhra Pradesh High Court order of May 15 denying him bail. The FIR against Raju was registered by the State CID on the basis of statements made by him to media regarding the handling of COVID-19 pandemic by the YS Jagan Mohan Reddy led YSR Congress government in the State. The police claimed that Raju's statements amounted to "hate speech" and creating enmity between castes and religions.Raju, who is an outspoken critic of his own party head and Chief Minister Reddy, had also filed an application before a Special CBI Court a few weeks ago seeking cancellation of bail granted to Reddy in cases pending before the court. He claimed that present case against him was registered due to that. .The top court had on May 17 directed Raju to be treated at Army Hospital, Secunderabad, while stating that his bail plea would be heard on May 21..On perusing Raju's medical reports on Friday, the Court found that he had suffered a fracture to his toe among other injuries. Pointing this out, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Raju, said,"That means the allegation of torture is proven. If this happens to a sitting MP, what will happen to an ordinary person?"He thus argued that bail should be immediately granted to his client, and that a probe be conducted to ascertain how he suffered the injuries..Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh government, however said that the injuries could be self-inflicted. "Something seems to have happened between the examination by the board as requested by the petitioner and now with the army hospital examination. We don't know if these are self inflicted injuries or not.".Rohatgi, however, pointed out that the magistrate had earlier called for a medical examination of his client. He said that the medical report was signed by a gynaecologist whose husband is the leader of the legal cell of the State government..On the injuries suffered by Raju, Rohatgi said,"Your lordships should take suo motu notice of the injuries inflicted upon Krishnam Raju and direct a CBI probe in this."He added that he would move an application seeking compensation and a probe against the Director General of Police of Andhra Pradesh..Dave then submitted that the medical report was inconclusive and did not prove any injury..On Raju's statements that led to sedition charges against him, Dave said,"He did not restrict himself to fair criticism of the government, but tried to stroke hatred among two communities. This caused public disharmony.".Dave went on to reiterate that "something happened between the reports", as he urged the Court to dismiss the bail plea on the ground that Raju's condition was stable and that he had no external injury.."This court was never intended to be a regular court of appeal but an apex court to lay down law and interpret the law. There is no miscarriage of justice here...only exceptional thing here is that he is a MP," Dave added. .Dave cited the Akhil Gogoi and Siddique Kappan cases, in which the apex court had refused to grant interim bail..Senior Advocate V Giri, appearing for the State of AP, asked the Court to stay the contempt proceedings initiated by the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the State Crime Investigation Department (CID) for failing to shift Raju to a private hospital..However, Justice Saran said,"If an order is uploaded then you can mention this on Monday or Tuesday before us and we will constitute a bench to hear this...it will be awkward if we pass orders on oral mentioning.".Giri then suggested that Raju be kept at the Army Hospital until the jurisdictional court disposes of his bail plea. In the alternative, he stated,"If he is granted bail then he should cooperate with the probe and he should stop giving interviews to the press.".After hearing the parties, the Court ordered,"The jurisdiction of the trial court and the High Court under Section 439 is concurrent. Merely because petitioner approached the High Court instead of the trial court does not mean that the trial court would not consider the bail plea. The High Court ought to have considered the bail plea on merits.".In his appeal before the Supreme Court, Raju had stated that the High Court did not consider any of the grounds for bail and instead directed him to approach the Sessions Court..Raju contended before the Supreme Court that the CM is "misutilizing" the State Police to frame his political opponents and keep them in jail. He had also claimed that he was tortured while in custody.He submitted that the present case is "nothing but a case of personal vendetta" of CM Reddy..In response to these contentions, the State of Andhra Pradesh told the Supreme Court that Raju had made consistent and deliberate attempts to incite disaffection towards the State government by creating a wedge between various classes and groups of citizens.."State can't wait with folded hands till actual complaint is filed:" AP govt tells Supreme Court MP Krishnam Raju incited one group to kill other.The State government further submitted that the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against Raju for the offence of sedition was registered only after thoroughly examining his statements."The Petitioner cannot be heard to say that the State ought to have waited with folded hands till an actual complaint was filed," the State government submitted..In its affidavit filed before the top court, Andhra government conceded that every individual, much less a Member of Parliament, has an inalienable right to criticize the government."But such a right cannot extend to creating a situation where public order is disturbed. Indeed, existence of public order is a sine qua non for effective exercise of the right to freedom of speech," the affidavit underscored..The AP government stated that the statements made by Raju were not a one-time slip or an error of judgment on his part of Raju, but were part of a "deliberate design and a conspiracy hatched by several individuals" including Raju "to create unrest in the State by dividing people on the basis of caste and religion.".[Read order]