ITEM NO.12 +33 COURT NO.2 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10116/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-10-2022 in CRL.PET. No. 5493/2022 passed by the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At Amravati)
KOTTEVALLA JAYAPRAKSAH REDDY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 10453/2022 (II)
ITEM NO.33
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 40577/2022
([TO BE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH ITEM NO. 12 I.E. SLP(Crl) No.10116/2022]……… IA No.6075/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.6078/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.6077/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) )
Date : 17-01-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pai Amit, AOR
Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv.
Mr. Poornachandiran R., Adv.
Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Sonali Suryavanshi, Adv.
Ms. Sonali Surayawanshi, Adv.
Mr. K. Sai Teja, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gursimar Preet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
Mr. Ananway Anandhvardhan, Adv.
Ms. Sivani Kakumanu, Ad
1 For Respondent(s) Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR
Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. K V Girish Chowdary, Adv.
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv.
Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv.
Mr. Sathyanarayanan Meenakshisundaram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR
Mr. Yelamanchili Shiva Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Yatinder Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Davinder Singh Khurana, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have pointed out that while the co-accused was granted bail on 16.8.2022 on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the role played by that accused and despite the direction of the Court to ensure the trial is completed within a period of one year, the trial is yet to commence and the reason stated for the same is that the prosecutor appointed had resigned at the inception because she was related to one of the accused in some way. No prosecutor has been appointed since the month of July/August since then. This lends credence to the argument of the complainant that in some way the State seems to be prima facie complicit in delaying the trial.
We consider it appropriate to direct the personal presence of the Home Secretary virtually in this Court.
List on 31 st
January, 2023.
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
2