The Supreme Court ordered the release on bail of two accused arrested in connection with the murder of Telugu Desam Party MLA and former MLA in the UAPA case. The agency argued that the accused had bought medicines worth Rs 8,000 before the murder. It was given to the Maoist group which is accused of murder. The Supreme Court reprimanded the agency's lawyer and said that if someone buys medicine, will you impose UAPA. What does this prove? Is it a crime to buy drugs? Where did it prove that the accused was involved in the murder case.

In fact, Telugu Desam Party MLA Kidari Sarveswara Rao and former MLA Siveri Soma. He was murdered on 23 September 2018 in Visakhapatnam. Sarveswara Rao was also the whip of the Telugu Desam Party. On the day of the incident, his PA had filed a case against 45 people in the police. All of them were members of the Communist Party of India (Maoist). This organization has been considered terrorist in the first schedule of UAPA. NIA immediately took this case in its hands. Accused Nos. 45 and 47 were arrested by the agency on 13 October 2018. The charge sheet was presented on 10 April 2019.

In its charge sheet, the agency named 79 people as accused in the murder of the two leaders. Earlier this number was 85. There are a total of 144 witnesses in the case. Senior advocate KM Nataraj, appearing for the NIA, told a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal that at the instance of accused no.46, a number of articles were recovered which were used to carry out the blasts.

He said that during interrogation on January 16, 2019, the accused admitted that he bought medicines worth about Rs 8,000 and delivered them to the terrorist organization. The agency claimed that accused no.46 and accused no.47 were in contact with each other till 18 days prior to the murder. Later the phone of accused no.47 got switched off.

Supreme Court asked- since when buying medicine became a crime, removed UAPA

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal's bench said in their decision that since when it became a crime to buy medicines long before the incident. You invoked UAPA as well. While the Maoist on whose behest the medicines were bought has been released on bail by the court. The Supreme Court said that both the accused gave statements immediately after their arrest. While his arrest was not even registered by the police in the police station, this thing raises the biggest doubt. The court said that whatever things you showed against both, not seeing them. It seems that sub-section (5) of section 43D of UAPA applies against both. The Supreme Court ordered the Special Court of NIA to release both within a week.