Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court cancelled the bail that was granted to cine artist Vallabhaneni Anil Kumar. The application was filed by Dr Kasthuri Srinivas, president of the Chitrapuri Sadhana Samiti, which lodged a complaint with the Raidurgam police stating that the government had allowed about 67 acres in Manikonda to the ‘Telugu Cine Workers Co-operative Housing Society Limited’ at Rs 40 per square yard, for allotment to industry workers who were not having any land or house. It was alleged that due to the hike in land price, the accused, being the secretary of the union, had admitted 9,153 members into the society when only 4,213 plots were available by creating fake ID cards and forging signatures of the committee of IAS officers appointed for allotment of plots. It was further alleged that the accused allotted plots even to ineligible persons and got amounts transferred to the personal accounts of the members from the accounts of the society that ran into crores. Anil Kumar was charged with offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and criminal intimidation and arrested after three years. The trial court granted bail in June 2024 on the condition that the accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. It was also alleged during a media conference that he had threatened members who had filed cases against the managing committee. Anil Kumar also participated in a meeting held in connection with inauguration of the office of Telugu Film and Digital Industry Employees Federation at Gandhinagar in
Vijayawada. The action of the accused in travelling out of the territorial jurisdiction of the court was in violation of the bail orders. If the accused is aggrieved of any of the conditions imposed while granting bail to him, he can seek relaxation of such conditions, but he cannot violate the same. The present case is a classic example of deliberate violation of orders of the court, Justice Juvvadi Sridevi said, while cancelling bail. She further pointed out that if such deliberate violation of court orders was not curtailed, there will not be any sanctity to the court orders. It is a clear misuse of the liberty granted by the court. Being not able to content with the liberty granted by the trial court, the accused has stretched his legs beyond its territorial jurisdiction, on what can be termed as “an unreasonable ground”.
Sugar manufacturers get HC nod to sell 2024-25 produce
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court granted interim relief to sugar manufacturing units by allowing them to sell free sale sugar stock manufactured during the sugar year 2024-25 subject to discharging contractual and statutory liabilities. This relief was granted while hearing a batch of writ pleas filed by NSL Krishnaveni Sugars Ltd and others, aggrieved by several orders of the Union ministry of consumer affairs, food and public distribution, directing every producer of sugar to hold white/refined sugar stock tentatively during the following month or until further orders. The orders were passed under the Essential Commodities Act read with the Sugar (Control) Order and other executive directions. Senior counsel Sunil Ganu, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners were obligated to comply with a circular issued by the director of sugar and cane commissioner, Telangana, whereby the petitioners have to honour their contractual obligations in terms of payment of statutory price at the recommended rate to the cane suppliers within 14 days from the date of delivery of cane. The senior counsel further contended that while sugar manufacturer units were being restrained from selling sugar in the open market, they are facing financial crisis due to statutory obligations. Several orders passed by co-ordinate benches in similar circumstances were also pointed out, whereby the interim protection was granted to the petitioners/sugar manufacturer units in the form of the respondents being directed to permit the petitioners to sell sugarcane stock during the concerned year subject to the petitioner discharging its contractual and statutory liabilities to the sugarcane suppliers/farmers. Considering the facts placed before the judge and the orders passed by the co-ordinate benches, the judge granted interim relief and directed the respondents to inter alia permit the petitioners to make payments to the sugarcane suppliers/farmers in their respective bank accounts. The matter is posted for further adjudication.
