Raghu Ramakrishna Raju vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 27 January, 2025

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Raghu Ramakrishna Raju vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 27 January, 2025

                                                          1

                                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                    CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                         TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO(S). 41443/2023

     RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU                                                      PETITIONER(S)

                                                              VERSUS

     CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.                                     RESPONDENT(S)

                                                  O R D E R

The petitioner is currently a Member of the

Legislative Assembly (“MLA”) from the Telugu Desam

Party in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly,

representing the Undi constituency, and serving as the

Deputy Speaker. Respondent No.2 is an MLA representing

the Kadapa constituency, the founder of the Yuvajana

Sramika Rythu Congress Party, and the former Chief

Minister of Andhra Pradesh. He is also the son of the

late Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, who served as the Chief

Minister of the erstwhile united Andhra Pradesh from

2004 to 2009. Respondents No.2 to 14 are accused in

Chargesheet C.C.No.8 of 2012, filed by Respondent No.1

—the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before the

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Signature Not Verified

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that
Digitally signed by

during the tenure of the late Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy as
GEETA JOSHI
Date: 2025.01.30
18:20:02 IST
Reason:

Chief Minister, allegations were made that the State

Government had extended undue benefits to certain
2

corporations and individuals based on a quid pro quo

arrangement. These benefits allegedly included the

allotment of land, mineral rights, licenses, benefits

within Special Economic Zones (SEZs), and rights to

develop ports along the eastern coastline of Andhra

Pradesh, in addition to permissions for setting up of

star hotels and commercial complexes in Hyderabad and

other major cities. In return, the beneficiaries were

purportedly supposed to invest kickbacks into various

personal and corporate businesses linked to Respondent

No.2.

3. By an order dated 10.08.2011, the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh directed Respondent No.1-CBI to

investigate these allegations. Pursuant to this order,

Respondent No.1 registered a case bearing

R.C.No.19(A)/2011-CBI, Hyderabad under Sections 120B,

420, 409, and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code read with

Sections 13(2), 13(1)(c), and 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against Respondent

No.2 and 73 others. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed

Chargesheet C.C. No.8 of 2012 before the Special Judge

for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, on 31.01.2012 naming

respondents 2 to 14 as accused persons. Additionally,

Respondent No.1 subsequently filed 10 more
3

chargesheets against the respondents and other accused

persons.

4. The petitioner alleges that these criminal cases

have been pending trial before the Special Judge for

CBI Cases, Hyderabad for over ten years with no

significant progress due to extraneous reasons. It is

contended that the respondents are deliberately

delaying the proceedings on multiple pretexts. Hence,

the petitioner has filed the present Transfer Petition

seeking the following reliefs:

“(a)Transfer C.C.Nos.8 of 2012 pending before
the Ld. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad to a
court of equal and competent jurisdiction in any
other state, inter-alia the Ld.Principal District
Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi;

b) Pass such other and/or further order(s)
that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.”

5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent

Nos.1 to 14 and perused the material on record.

6. During the course of submissions, learned counsel

for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the fact

that despite several orders being passed by the High

Court for the State of Telangana including the one

dated 23.07.2024, there has been hardly any progress in
4

the prosecution of the matters before the concerned CBI

Court. In this regard, the order dated 23.07.2024

passed in WP (PIL) No.77 of 2023 and Suo motu W.P.No.11

of 2023 by the High Court for the State of Telangana

has been read to us.

7. On perusal of the said order, we find that the

High Court is monitoring the progress of the case

before the concerned CBI Court. The High Court has

recorded that the CBI Court shall take up the cases

pending against the respondent No.3 therein on a day to

day basis and it has reiterated the said directions.

8. Even though the High Court has opined as above,

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one

of the reasons for seeking transfer of the case is

owing to the delay in the prosecution and conclusion of

the trial before the CBI Court.

9. We do not think that the transfer of the case as

sought for by the petitioner herein would any way aid

in an expeditious disposal of the case.

10. In the circumstances, we do not think that this

petition would call for any further consideration.

11. Hence, the Transfer Petition is dismissed.

Needless to observe that the directions of the High

Court shall be complied with by the concerned CBI
5

Court.

12. In view of the aforesaid order, all pending

application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………………………………………………., J
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

…………………………………………………………………., J
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 27, 2025
6

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.8 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO(S). 41443/2023

RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

(IA NO. 107143/2024 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA NO. 228241/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA NO. 165495/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA NO. 220815/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..)

WITH

SLP(CRL) NO. 15309-15310/2023 (II)
(IA FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON
IA 234282/2023
IA NO. 234282/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 27-01-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
Mr. Rohan Dewan, Adv.

Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Adv.

Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Siddani Sri Venkatesh, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.

Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.

Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.

7

Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.

Mr. Rajendra Singh Rana, Adv.

Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR
Mr. Adithya Koshy Roy, Adv.

Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Adv.

Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv.

Mr. Amit Agrawal, AOR

Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv.

Mr. Parmatma Singh, AOR
Mr. Madhur Jain, Adv.

Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Adv.

Mr. Arpit Goel, Adv.

Mr. Reshul Mittra, Adv.

Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ved P Singh, Adv.

Mr. Kushagra Pandey, AOR

Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Amit Agrawal, AOR
Mr. Sahil Raveen, Adv.

Mr. Sana Jain, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

The Transfer Petition is dismissed in terms of

the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

SLP(CRL) NOS. 15309-15310/2023

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

he has instructions to withdraw these Special Leave
8

Petitions.

His submission is placed on record.

The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as

withdrawn.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)