Hyderabad: Knowing that they were in Hyderabad for a family wedding, the CBI swooped down on Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited chairman T. Venkatram Reddy and vice-chairman and managing director T. Ravi Vinayak Reddy and arrested them illegally, without giving notice or following due procedure, all in an effort to humiliate them.
Both Mr Venkatram Reddy and Mr Ravi Reddy have been cooperating with the CBI in the long investigation, which has not produced any evidence of financial fraud. The urgency with which the CBI arrested them over the weekend and took them to the house of a magistrate past 9 pm clearly illustrates that they had set out to humiliate the owners of one of India’s biggest English newspapers.
The arrest was made in a casual manner, ignoring a Supreme Court judgement on the matter. There was neither any notice, or any warrant. The arrests were made on a case lodged in 2013 by Canara Bank for alleged default of loan. DCHL intends to fight out the illegal arrest of its company directors in the courts. The company’s heads have always cooperated with the investigation and have been available to the investigating agencies. No incriminating evidence suggesting fraud has been brought against them.
The summary arrest by the CBI runs against the judgement of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar. The apex court had clearly mandated that no arrest can be made in a routine manner on mere allegation of commission of an offence.
The arrest was made on a case registered in 2013. The SC has ruled that in cases where the maximum punishment is seven years, a casual arrest cannot be made. It is mandatory for the investigating agencies to serve a notice under Section 41 of CrPC prior to the arrest. This, the CBI had failed to do when it arrested the DCHL chiefs.
The CBI failed to record the reasons for the arrest. This constitutes contempt of court, DCHL counsel Arcot Chandrasekhar told judge Y. Veera Raju. The 14th additional chief metropolitan magistrate ordered the authorities to take care of the health of Mr Venkatram Reddy and Mr Ravi Reddy, and that it shall provide necessary assistance.
=========================
IT IS JUST NOT RIGHT
=========================
- The arrest was made without giving notice, and without serving a warrant
- The case pertains to a 2013 case of alleged loan default.
- The SC has ruled that in cases where the maximum punishment is seven years, a casual arrest cannot be made. It is mandatory for the investigating agencies to serve notice under Section 41 of CrPC prior to the arrest.
- The CBI did not provide a warrant. The CBI also failed to record the reasons for the arrest. This constitutes contempt of court.
- The company chiefs have always cooperated with the investigation and have been available to the investigating agencies.
- There is no basis for the CBI concluding that the DCHL chiefs are likely to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses now, when it has not happened even once in the last two years of investigations.
