Meanwhile, the court directed Pakala to respond to the notices issued by the police earlier in the day, within two days. It was subject to this condition that the court gave directions to the police, which, it asked to continue with the investigation as per procedure. An advocate can accompany Pakala when he appears before the investigation team, the court said.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy was dealing with a house motion petition filed by Pakala claiming that the police were not acting in accordance with law, while conducting the investigation. He claimed that the case was registered to tarnish the political image of Rama Rao.
He complained that the crime was registered for extraneous considerations and to target family members of his brother-in-law. Senior counsel Mayur Reddy and Vimal Varma Vasireddy, while submitting Pakala’s contentions, said that the event was a housewarming party in which 43 relatives and close friends, including 21 men, 14 women, children and senior citizens, were present. The police tried to colour it as a rave party and had alleged that NDPS substances were being used by the attendants.
They submitted that around midnight the police had collected urine samples of all guests and searched the premises without any warrant. They said that the Mokila police had issued notices to Pakala on Sunday evening and asked him to appear before them at 9.30 am on Monday, without giving any time to the petitioner.
Mohd. Imran Khan, additional advocate-general, said t.
