When the advocate Pratap came rushing to the court after receiving a notice from SIT under section 41-A of CrPC, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy asked him to comply with the procedure mentioned in the notice even while telling SIT not to arrest him.
The judge said SIT was at liberty to approach the court to seek further action against the advocate if he failed to comply with the procedure.
Senior counsel Vinod Kumar Deshpande, who argued on behalf of Pratap, said there was no involvement of Pratap in the case and the notice also did not indicate any such thing.
Advocate general BS Prasad informed the court that SIT was in possession of material against the petitioner, which was retrieved from electronic gadgets which cannot be divulged at this stage. “There is every possibility that the petitioner may erase this crucial data from his cellphone,” the AG said. Non-appearance of the petitioner before SIT would amount to scuttling the investigation, the AG said.