look news india
Mumbai: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to quash the case against former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader Nakka Anand Babu for attacking a policeman in Maharashtra in 2010.
There is no doubt that there is sufficient material to show the involvement of both Nadu and Babu in the alleged crime, the court said in its May 10 judgment.
The court has rejected the plea of Naidu and Babu, in which they had sought quashing of the FIR registered against them by the Dharmadabad police in Maharashtra's Nanded district.
The government servant has been charged with assault by force and wounding with a deadly weapon, endangering the life of others and disturbing the peace by intentional insult.
Naidu threatened war between the two states and instigated fellow prisoners. The witnesses have shown the role of both the petitioners in the crime and the medical certificate also shows that the police officers were injured. The court rejected the petitions of both but extended the interim protection till July 8.
In July 2010, Naidu and Babu and 66 associates were arrested by the police in other cases of protest and agitation. Both were given judicial custody and kept in temporary jail at the government rest house in Dharmadabad.
After the court extended his custody, the DIG of Maharashtra Jail ordered to transfer him to Aurangabad Central Jail. However, the two refused to go to the jail from the rest house and allegedly insulted the jail officials in Telugu and English.
The jailer requested them to board an air-conditioned bus but said that if they were forced to board the bus, there would be a conflict between the two states.
Both of them are accused of provoking other accused and attacking some police officers and using force. Additional forces were called and both had to be transferred to the jail. The agitation case has been withdrawn and the magistrate has immediately released all the accused, but the police machinery is implicating them in the assault case. His lawyer argued that the allegations in the case were fabricated.
However, the court refused to accept the arguments, saying that the case against him was registered under the Autonomous Act and not the Prison Act.
