Telangana HC reserves bail order for Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy in AP politician’s murder case – Telangana Today

The Telangana High Court on Tuesday reserved its orders on the bail application filed by Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy, who is involved in the high-profile murder case of Andhra Pradesh politician YS Vivekananda Reddy.

With Legal Reporter

Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday reserved orders on the bail application filed by Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy, who is implicated in the high-profile murder case of Andhra Pradesh politician YS Vivekananda Reddy.

During the hearing, Uma Shankar’s lawyer Narsi Reddy argued that his client was not involved in the crime and the identification made by watchman Ranganna was erroneous. He pointed out the developments in 161 statements of Ranganna and pointed out the contradictions between the statement given by Dastagiri, who gave the approval, and the confession statement of his accomplice Sunil Yadav. The lawyer argued that the CCTV footage presented by the investigation agency did not belong to Uma Shankar. He also emphasized that his client has been in custody for over three years and urged the court to grant bail to Uma Shankar, a small businessman, claiming that she poses no threat to the ongoing investigation or trial.

In opposition, CBI special counsel Anil Tanwar and advocate S. Goutham, representing the deceased’s daughter Suneetha Narreddy, requested the court to deny bail citing serious allegations against Uma Shankar. They highlighted allegations that he was involved in the planning and execution of the murder and efforts to destroy evidence. While Tanwar cited forensic laboratory reports confirming the authenticity of CCTV footage linked to Uma Shankar, Goutham pointed out the relevant circumstances surrounding the case, including intimidation of witnesses and the suspicious death of witness K. Gangi Reddy. Goutham also pointed out that the accused had threatened key witnesses, including Suneetha and her husband, and CBI investigating officer Ram Singh, and filed a case against them. He stated that senior IAS officer Ajay Kallam tried to withdraw his statement in the case but stopped pursuing the matter after the CBI submitted the recorded evidence to the court. The lawyer submitted that the CBI did not examine the threat complaint lodged by the approver Dastagiri, leading to losses in reaching a conclusion regarding the perception of threat in the case.

The prosecution argued that the allegations put forward by the defense were more suitable for trial rather than being evaluated at the bail stage. Concluding their defense, the lawyers argued that no case has been filed for bail and allowing Uma Shankar’s release could jeopardize the integrity of the case and ultimately lead to denial of justice. The court’s decision on the bail application is awaited.

2. A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court reserved its verdict on a writ petition challenging the legality of the police encounter that resulted in the deaths of two CPI (Maoist) leaders, Patel Sudhakar Reddy and Venkataiah. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, heard the Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC), Prof., who claimed that the encounter was planned. He considers the defense submitted by S. Seshaiah. The incident in question took place in Warangal district on May 23, 2009; here police reported that two Maoist leaders were arrested and subsequently killed in what they claimed was crossfire. Police allege that a team conducting combing operations in the Lavvala forest area encountered around 25 Maoists who opened fire despite orders to surrender, leading to a gunfight that lasted for about half an hour. The plaintiff claims that the encounter was fabricated and is trying to find the context of the incident. A criminal complaint was filed against the police officers involved in the incident. He alleged that the actions of the house officer of Tadwal police station and the inspector of MGM Hospital, who supervised the post-mortem examination, were illegal and arbitrary. District Police Chief VC Sajjanar defended the police’s actions, stating that they were based on intelligence on Maoist movements and were carried out in self-defence. After the first autopsy at Eturunagaram Government Hospital, the Supreme Court ordered a second examination at MGM Hospital in Warangal and directed that the procedure be videotaped to ensure transparency. The state is currently awaiting the final autopsy report and plans to file a closure report in criminal court, where the case is still pending.