Jagan Reddy Secures Interim Relief in Convoy Death Case
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted interim relief to former Chief Minister and YSR Congress Party leader Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy in the case relating to the death of a supporter during his convoy’s movement in Palnadu district. The court has restrained police from initiating any coercive action against Reddy and six others named in the FIR until the next hearing scheduled for July 1.
Convoy accident leads to FIR upgrade
The incident occurred on June 18 during Reddy’s public rally near Satanapalle, where 53-year-old C. Singayya was fatally struck by a vehicle in the convoy. Initially registered under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for causing death by negligence, the FIR was later escalated to include Section 105 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Section 49 for abetment. This escalation came after drone and CCTV footage allegedly revealed negligence on part of the convoy and its occupants.
Court questions legality of charges
During the hearing, Reddy’s legal counsel contended that naming the former CM and other passengers in the vehicle as accused lacked legal merit and appeared politically motivated. They argued that the inclusion of Reddy was based on assumption rather than evidence. The court, agreeing that the upgraded charges raised serious questions, remarked that accidents can happen even under strict regulation, citing large-scale events like the Kumbh Mela. Justice K. Srinivas Reddy specifically asked the Advocate General to explain the legal grounds for implicating passengers and observed that prima facie evidence of direct culpability was lacking.
Political reactions and next steps
The development has triggered strong political reactions across Andhra Pradesh. YSRCP leaders accused the current government of using the incident to malign their party leadership, claiming that the case was being twisted to distract from administrative failures. On the other hand, the TDP criticised the conduct of Reddy’s convoy, calling it reckless and negligent. They questioned why the convoy allegedly failed to stop or provide immediate assistance after the accident, and why there were more vehicles than permitted by authorities.
With interim protection in place, all eyes are now on the July 1 proceedings. The High Court is expected to assess the legal basis for the enhanced charges and the decision to name high-profile individuals in the FIR. The outcome could set a precedent for how political accountability is enforced in high-profile public incidents involving VVIP convoys.
