Telangana High Court seeks status of cases against Nowhera Shaik
Justice Ghandikota Sri Devi directed police to submit the details by August 7.
Hyderabad: The High Court asked police on Tuesday to submit the status of cases against Heera Group chairperson Nowhera Shaik who complained that she was deliberately being kept in jail since October 15 last year by slapping several cases for the same offence at different places.
Justice Ghandikota Sri Devi directed police to submit the details by August 7, including FIR copies, charge sheets and details regarding how many cases she had secured bail in and how many cases were pending before the lower courts for bail.
The judge was dealing with four petitions by Nowhera and Heera Gold Exim Private Ltd, stating that police had no jurisdiction to investigate and take her into custody as the Serious Fraud Investigation Office was carrying out an investigation under the Companies Act.
Mr P. Venugopal, former attorney-general of Andhra Pradesh, representing Nowhera and the Heera group, said that the Telangana state Chief Secretary had stated in one of the counter-affidavits that the cases fall under the Companies Act.
Contrary to that, state police had been filing cases under the Protection of Depositors Act. He submitted that as the shariat does not allow taking interest, the Heera group only pays dividends. “With the arrest of Nowhera, the company could not pay dividends. If she is released, the dues will be paid in a short time,” counsel said.
Mr Venugopal said that investigation and action could be taken only under the provisions of the Companies Act for not paying dividends.
He said, “By keeping Nowhera in jail, the state is trying to help a political party led by Muslims which never wants a rival party in the same community.”
Mr Syed Tousif Basha, counsel representing the defacto complainants, said that several criminal cases had been lodged against Nowhera and they should be investigated by police under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
He submitted that Nowhera’s counsels were concealing facts and trying to mislead the court by filing different petitions.