The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently refused to dismiss a criminal case against former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader Nakka Ananda Babu.
The case dates back to 2010 when both were accused of assaulting prison personnel during their transfer to Aurangabad Central Jail following their arrest in another case.
A division bench comprising Justice Mangesh Patil and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme noted that there is sufficient evidence suggesting the involvement of both Naidu and Babu in the alleged offense.
The court dismissed their applications seeking to have the FIR against them canceled by the Dharmabad police in Maharashtra’s Nanded district.
Naidu and Babu are charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 353, 324, 332, 336, 337, 504, 506, along with Section 109 and Section 34. These charges relate to allegations of assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant, causing harm with dangerous weapons, engaging in rash acts that endanger the lives of others, intentionally insulting with an intent to provoke a breach of peace, and criminal intimidation.
The incident allegedly took place in July 2010 when Naidu, Babu, and 66 associates were arrested by Dharmabad police during protests and agitation. Initially held in judicial custody at a temporary prison in Dharmabad, they were later ordered to be transferred to Aurangabad Central Prison by the Maharashtra Prisons’ DIG. Naidu and Babu reportedly resisted, verbally abused jail authorities, and threatened inter-state conflict if forced onto the arranged transport.
Accusations also include instigating others and assaulting police officials, requiring additional forces for their transfer to Aurangabad central prison.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Naidu and Babu, argued that some acts constituted prison offenses under the Prisons Act, 1894, specifically Chapters X and XI, and thus fell under the Superintendent of the Prison’s jurisdiction according to Section 48 of the Act.
The court emphasized that the charges only referenced IPC offenses in the FIR and charge-sheet, indicating the case fell under IPC jurisdiction rather than the Prisons Act. Therefore, the mechanism for lodging FIRs under the Prisons Act did not apply.
The court noted the timely filing of the FIR after the incident and medical evidence from injured police personnel supporting the accusations. Witness statements and injury certificates of 12 police personnel further corroborated the allegations.
Regarding Section 52 of the Act dealing with heinous offenses by prisoners, the court clarified it did not prevent police from registering crimes under Section 154 of the CrPC or a Magistrate from taking cognizance of non-prison offenses in the prison.
Rule 25 of the Punishments Rules under Section 59 of the Prisons Act outlines procedures for dealing with acts constituting both prison offenses and IPC offenses. The court clarified that such discretion does not apply to offenses exclusively under the IPC.
Consequently, the court rejected the applications to quash the criminal case against the accused but extended interim relief until July 8, 2024.
