Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Sabita & Dharmana finds a breather
By: Tupaki Desk | 7 Aug 2013 5:28 PM GMT
Former minister Sabita Indra Reddy and Dharmana Prasada Rao got a big relief in YRS Congress chief YS Jaganmohan Reddy's disproportionate assets case. The CBI special court struck down the memo filed by CBI seeking the custody of these two ministers citing they might influence the witnesses if they weren't arrested.
Submitting few video clippings from TV Channels in which Sabita and Dharma said that they were innocent and would come out clean, CBI questioned how could they claim to be innocent when the case proceedings were going on in the court and seeked their custody.
On the other hand, Minister's counsel argued CBI is questioning the right to freedom of speech permitted by the constitution and asked why the investigation agency has demanding the custody of his clients all of a sudden. He pointed out that his clients have done no wrong, but just explained to the people their version of the story.
After hearing both the arguments, CBI court announced the judgement in favor of the ministers by rejecting the Judicial Remand request as it felt there was no proper evidence against the accused to say they have resorted to intimidating the witnesses.
Submitting few video clippings from TV Channels in which Sabita and Dharma said that they were innocent and would come out clean, CBI questioned how could they claim to be innocent when the case proceedings were going on in the court and seeked their custody.
On the other hand, Minister's counsel argued CBI is questioning the right to freedom of speech permitted by the constitution and asked why the investigation agency has demanding the custody of his clients all of a sudden. He pointed out that his clients have done no wrong, but just explained to the people their version of the story.
After hearing both the arguments, CBI court announced the judgement in favor of the ministers by rejecting the Judicial Remand request as it felt there was no proper evidence against the accused to say they have resorted to intimidating the witnesses.
