Kadambari Jatwani Case: AG Opposes Bail for Senior Police Officers

Advocate General (AG) Dammalapati Srinivas argued in the High Court on Friday that anticipatory bail should not be granted to police officers accused in actress Kadambari Jatwani's case. He asserted that to uncover the conspiracy behind Jatwani's alleged illegal arrest, the accused must be taken into custody and interrogated. It is known that the Ibrahimpatnam police registered a case following Jatwani's complaint about her illegal arrest and alleged torture. 

The High Court heard anticipatory bail petitions filed by IPS officers Kanthi Rana Tata, Vishal Gunni, former Vijayawada West Zone ACP Hanumantha Rao, and former Ibrahimpatnam CI M. Satyanarayana. AG Srinivas contended that granting anticipatory bail to senior police officials, who are expected to uphold the law, would send a wrong message to society and urged the court to dismiss their petitions.

Representing Jatwani, advocates Vasireddy Prabhudas and Narra Srinivasarao alleged that former Intelligence DG Sitaramanjaneyulu played a key role in Jatwani's wrongful arrest. Following his verbal orders, a police team went to Mumbai, arrested Jatwani and her family members, and brought them to Vijayawada. They stated that there is prima facie evidence implicating each accused in the case registered based on Jatwani's complaint.

On behalf of the petitioners, senior advocates Sriram, Vinod Kumar, Deshpande, and Pattabhi argued that the case was initially registered in February based on a complaint by Kukkala Vidyasagar, alleging that Jatwani attempted to sell land using forged documents. They contended that registering a second case based on Jatwani's complaint before completing the investigation into the first case is legally invalid.

They also noted that Vidyasagar, the first accused in the land forgery case, had already secured bail and requested anticipatory bail for the petitioners. After hearing both sides, Justice VRK Krupasagar adjourned the hearing to December 19 for further arguments. The court extended its previous interim order restraining immediate action against the petitioners.