Telangana HC Grants Bail to Man Arrested as Friend of Murder Suspect
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court enlarged on bail a person arrested merely on the ground that he was a friend of the accused in an alleged murder case at Kadthal, Rangareddy district. Justice J. Sridevi was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Vallepudasu Shekar. It was the case of the prosecution that the primary accused and deceased belonged to the BJP. During the last Assembly elections, the deceased joined the Congress after which he allegedly used to comment and talk against the primary accused and delete messages posted by the primary accused in the Govindapally village group. Keeping the same in mind, the primary accused, along with other accused, allegedly kidnapped the deceased and confined him in the villa rented by them and stabbed him to death. Counsel for the petitioner, Kadire Ajith Reddy, submitted that though the petitioner was in no way concerned with the alleged offences, merely being a friend of the primary accused, he was arrested on June 7. He submitted that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the complaint and no specific overt act was attributed against him. The judge, after hearing the public prosecutor, pointed out that it was apparent that both the deceased and primary accused belonged to different political parties and merely being a friend of the primary accused, the petitioner was arrested. The judge allowing the petition said, ‘as no specific overt act is attributed against the petitioner this court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for grant of bail’. The judge laid down certain conditions inter alia shall abide by the conditions stipulated in section 437(3) CrPC.
PIL alleges illegal constructions at Shyamala cheruvu buffer zone
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ordered notices in a PIL alleging illegal constructions within FTL limits and buffer zone of Shyamala cheruvu at Bheemaram village, Warangal district. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, took on file a PIL filed by Papula Ramesh, who alleged that illegal constructions were underway in Sy No. 642, to an extent of 67 acres and 22 guntas. The petitioner stated that his representation to the authorities in this regard was in vain and revenue officials failed to consider his multiple representations. He alleged that the joint survey report conducted by the revenue and irrigation departments was also illegal. The panel ordered notices and posted the matter for further adjudication.
Govt faulted for taking acquisition pleas ignoring records
Justice Surrepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court faulted the government for taking pleas contrary to the records with regard to acquisition of land allegedly for providing house sites to the weaker sections in Devarakadra mandal of Mahbubnagar district. The judge allowed a writ petition filed by S. Krishna Reddy and others complaining that their land of about 15 acres was sought to be acquired contrary to law, and the petitioners were being threatened for possession of the same. Senior counsel S. Srinivas Reddy, on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the said land belonging to them was not acquired for providing house sites to the needy. The petitioners denied the allegation of the revenue authorities that the same was not carried out in the revenue records by oversight. It was the case of the petitioners also that the revenue authorities, by virtue of pressure and influence brought upon them at the instance of a private party, and for extraneous considerations, fabricated the panchama contrary to the pattadar passbooks. On a detailed perusal of the records, the court noticed several differences between the pleadings and the note files. She proceeded to record that “the original record placed before the court does not support the case of the official respondents.” She also pointed out that the note file did not record the details of the alleged land acquisition award, and added, “however, based on the record which does not contain any documents relating to the alleged acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners by following the due process contained in the Act. The government pleader curiously contended that the record produced by him corroborates that the land of the petitioner was acquired.” “This court opines that the said plea of the official respondents is without any justification and contrary to the record,” the court said while upholding Srinivas Reddy’s argument that “the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right, though it is not a basic feature of the Constitution or a fundamental right. Human rights are considered to be in the realm of individual rights, such as the right to health, the right to livelihood, the right to shelter and employment, etc., now however human rights are gaining an ever-greater multifaceted dimension.’ The judge, accordingly, allowed the writ petition.
HC tells police to abide by sections under BNS
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the police to follow the procedure under Section 35 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the new code of criminal procedure. The provision correlates to Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code. To those who arrived late, in ‘Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar’, the apex court said that the police were bound to give notice and not arrest a person. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Mohammed Abrar seeking directions to the station house officer, Amberpet, not to interfere with his personal life and liberty. V. Srinivas, the complainant, was a Pothu Raju at the recently held Bonalu. He said that when he was consuming alcohol at a wine shop in Amberpet during the celebrations, the petitioner and others picked up a quarrel with him. The petitioner complained he did not have any friend with the names mentioned in the FIR. He also said that the police were constantly calling his father and threatening him with arrest. Mir Mukarram Ali, counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the police personnel had not only taken law into their own hands but also failed to follow the procedure envisaged under Section 35 of the new code.
