Top Naxals Ganapathy, Basavraj named in Gadchiroli attack FIR
   Date :06-May-2019

TOP functionaries of the proscribed Communist Party of India (Maoist) and at least 120 others have been named in the police case registered in connection with the IED blast in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra on May 1 that killed 15 policemen and a driver. The incident took place near Jambhurkheda village in Kurkheda tehsil of the district, over 900 kilometres from here, when jawans of Gadchiroli police’s Quick Response Team were on their way to a site where Naxals had earlier torched 25 vehicles.
The case has been registered at Purada police station in Gadchiroli district, an official said on Sunday. CPI (Maoist) former general secretary Muppala Lakshman Rao alias Ganapathy, current chief Nambala Keshav Rao alias Basavraj, who was earlier head of the Maoists ‘Central Military Commission’, are the top functionaries of the banned outfit named in the FIR. The others include Mallojulla alias Venugopal Rao alias Bhupathi who is in-charge of the Naxal ‘red corridor’ centred around Lalgarh in West Bengal’s West Midnapore district, an official said.
Top Maoist operatives like Katakam Sudarshan, better known by his nom de guerre Anand, Satyanarayan Reddy, Milind Teltumbde, Bhaskar Rao Hichkani have also been named as accused, he added. The others are Puluri Prasad Rao alias Chandranna, Lokati Chandran Rao, Gokul Madavi, Navluram Tulavi, Dinkar Gotta, Vilas Kolla, Jagdish Tekam, Madhu Mansing Tekam, Umesh Waddo, Maini Bogga, Vinod Bogga, Kedar Pijjo, all operating at different levels of the Naxal hierarchy, the official said. Puluri, Madhu and Maini are the women cadre, he informed.
The Naxals have been charged under sections 302 (murder), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 143 (member of an unlawful assembly), 147 (common intention), 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code besides sections 5 and 28 of the Arms Act and under provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act. Sections 16, 18, 20, 23 of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have also been invoked against them in the case.