Published Jul 18, 2026 | 3:33 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 18, 2026 | 4:27 PM
Gade Sai Krishna and his mother Vijaya Lakshmi. (Screengrab/ X)
Synopsis: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed Gade Vijaya Lakshmi to explain her reasons for seeking to withdraw both the habeas corpus petition and a related plea seeking a CBI probe into the alleged custodial death of her son, Gade Sai Krishna. While her former legal team alleged coercion, the case saw several other developments at the Supreme Court and NHRC.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has asked Gade Vijaya Lakshmi, mother of Gade Sai Krishna, to explain her decision to withdraw the habeas corpus petition and a separate interlocutory application seeking a CBI inquiry into his alleged custodial death.
The court, on 15 July, noted that she sought permission to withdraw the petitions even as the case had moved on several fronts this week — from the Supreme Court to the National Human Rights Commission.
Sai Krishna, a 25-year-old Vijayawada man, was picked up by Krishnalanka police on 6 May but was never produced before a magistrate. He allegedly died of injuries caused by custodial torture. His mortal remains were yet to be found.
Vijaya Lakshmi’s complaint led to the registration of an FIR against Circle Inspector SSVV Nagaraju and other police personnel suspected to be behind Sai Krishna’s disappearance. The state government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and arrested Nagaraju and four of his colleagues.
A division bench of Justices Ravinath Tilhari and Chintalapudi Purushotham Kumar took up Vijaya Lakshmi’s withdrawal request on 15 July. The bench noted that she had sought withdrawal of the habeas corpus petition in one proceeding and of the interlocutory application seeking a CBI probe in another, and asked her to explain the reasons behind the move.
While granting her liberty to file a fresh application later, the court directed Vijaya Lakshmi to place her reasons for withdrawal on record.
The same day, a separate High Court bench dismissed a PIL filed by YSRCP leader and former minister Ambati Rambabu, who had also sought a CBI probe into Sai Krishna’s disappearance. The bench refused to entertain multiple pleas on the same issue.
The Bezawada Bar Association’s (BBA) Human Rights Committee, which had been assisting Vijaya Lakshmi’s legal fight, reacted sharply to her move to step back from the case.
At a news conference held on 15 July, the lawyers said the family was under serious pressure. They recalled that Vijaya Lakshmi had first approached them saying her son had gone missing. Their fact-finding team had travelled to Markapuram and confirmed the man’s disappearance.
The committee questioned the SIT for not recording witness statements under CrPC Section 164 (Recording of Confessions and Statements; Section 183 in BNSS) and the state’s reluctance in ordering a judicial inquiry, despite the confirmed loss of CCTV footage. They also demanded transferring the case to the CBI for a transparent investigation.
The legal team, however, clarified that they still saw Vijaya Lakshmi as a victim and that they would continue to fight cases where the common people are at the receiving end of systemic injustice.
Speaking to South First, Advocate Satish Babu, representing the BBA’s Human Rights Committee, said, “We filed all the petitions with Vijaya Lakshmi’s consent. We were awaiting a hearing as per procedure. We were acting on behalf of Advocate Kanaka Durga, who is Vijaya Lakshmi’s sister. And even she was blindsided by this sudden change in plans.”
He said Vijaya Lakshmi first submitted a memo on 10 July, requesting a change of legal representation. On 13 July, she appeared before the High Court to confirm the request.
The BBA was reportedly unaware of the 13 July developments. The request to withdraw both the habeas corpus and the CBI inquiry plea was filed by a new legal team on 14 July, Advocate Babu said.
“Advocate Kanaka Durga, who we have been working with, wants to continue pursuing the case on the committee’s behalf if the SIT’s final report fails to offer concrete answers. It would be regardless of the mother’s stance,” he added.
On 13 July, the CBI filed a counter-affidavit in the High Court, opposing the transfer of the case to the federal agency’s purview.
The agency argued that the case had no interstate or international dimension warranting its involvement, and that the investigation was already progressing under the supervision of an IG-rank officer of the state police.
Citing a Supreme Court precedent that held that transfers to the CBI should occur only in exceptional circumstances, the agency also noted that routinely handing over cases could strain its limited resources and affect its ability to investigate other complex matters.
It further submitted that if the court still decide a transfer was warranted, the state government should be directed to provide the CBI with the personnel and other resources needed to carry out the probe.
Meanwhile, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard a plea concerning the conditions imposed on CI Nagaraju’s custody.
The SIT had approached the apex court, challenging conditions imposed by the High Court, including a requirement to conduct mandatory audio and video recording of the entire process of interrogating Nagaraju.
The SIT argued that continuous recording could compromise the probe’s confidentiality and hamper efforts such as scene reconstruction and the search for Sai Krishna’s remains.
The Supreme Court issued a notice to Nagaraju, giving him a week to respond. The court will further the case on 23 July.
The National Human Rights Commission had earlier directed the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, to submit a comprehensive report on the case.
In its response dated 3 July, the DGP’s office confirmed that an FIR was registered at Krishnalanka Police Station on 19 June under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The Rights Commission was also informed that Nagaraju and four other police personnel had been arrested and suspended from service.
The report also confirmed that the CCTV system at the police station had been deliberately tampered with, and the original hard disks had been removed and replaced to destroy evidence.
The Commission observed that the SIT’s investigation appeared to be on track but flagged that Sai Krishna’s mortal remains were yet to be traced, calling it a crucial step in securing the case against the accused. On 16 July, it called for additional information from the DGP on the progress of the investigation and the recovery of the remains, directing that a follow-up report be submitted within four weeks.
Also Read | Chilling custodial crime and cover-up: The Gade Sai Krishna case is one Andhra Police cannot wish away
(Edited by R Rajesh Kumar.)
