Hyderabad:Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court sentenced a sub-inspector for contempt of court. He faulted the SI for not showing any remorse and arrogantly defying court orders. The judge sentenced Naresh Yadav, SI of Tharigoppula police station, Warangal, to one week imprisonment and a fine of `50,000 to be paid in his personal capacity for wilful disobedience of the court order. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by one Golusu Narsaiah. Earlier the judge, while entertaining a criminal petition, directed officials at Tharigoppula police station to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A CrPC and the guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court in ‘Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar’. It is the case of the petitioner that despite there being a direction to the police to follow the due procedure, he was arrested and produced before the judicial first-class magistrate at Jangaon, who remanded him to 14 days judicial custody. According to the petitioner, at the time of arrest he informed the errant official of the orders of the High Court and also informed the magistrate. It is contended by the contemnor that the order was not communicated by this court or by the petitioner. He further contended that the police tried to serve 41-A CrPC notice to the petitioner, who was absconding. Subsequently, the petitioner was apprehended after informing the grounds for the arrest. The court questioned the contemnor regarding him claiming to have followed the procedure under Section 41-A of CrPC and asked the officer to produce the CD file to know whether any attempts were made to serve notice on to the petitioner. At that juncture, the contemnor, represented by the government pleader, informed that they need time to file a better affidavit. The judge found that the second affidavit filed by the contemnor was a reiteration that he had no knowledge about the orders passed by the court and also submitted his unconditional apology. Thereafter, another affidavit was filed by the contemnor deleting the averments with regard to following due procedure of law. Justice Surender questioned the public prosecutor about the manner in which the police are informed about the criminal appeals or petitions being filed. The public prosecutor stated that in all quash petitions after notice is received in their office, it is transmitted to the concerned police station. Even after the orders are passed, the said intimation is given to the concerned police station. The judge said that the version of the contemnor in the first and second affidavits that he tried to follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and the petitioner/accused was not available, is not acceptable. It is not explained by the contemnor as to the reasons for not being able to find the petitioner for serving notice under Section 41-A CrPC but arrested him. If the contemnor wanted to serve notice as stated by him in his first two affidavits, he ought to have served it on the day of arrest. The judge also observed that any person who has obtained an order protecting his personal liberty restraining the police from arrest initially, directing the police to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41-A of CrPC, would inform the police officer invariably when the police officer wants to arrest him. The judge said that even after the contempt petition was filed the contemnor in the first two affidavits asserted that he tried to serve 41-A CrPC notice on the petitioner/accused. The contemnor is again lying on oath in the affidavit. Justice Surender while allowing the contempt petition said, “I have no hesitation to hold that the contemnor is guilty of civil contempt for deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders of this court.” He said, the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor is unacceptable. His conduct reflects his deliberate and arrogant approach in violating this court’s order and coming up with a false version that he tried to follow procedure under Section 41-A of CrPC, when questioned by this court. There is absolutely no remorse or contrition and therefore the apology does not merit acceptance. The court accordingly sentenced the contemnor to one week imprisonment along with a fine of `2,000. In addition, the contemnor was also directed to compensate the petitioner with `50,000 in his personal capacity. However, at 2.15 pm a request was made by the government pleader to suspend the sentence so as to enable the contemnor to file an appeal. The judge accordingly suspended the sentence for a period of 10 days to enable the contemnor to prefer an appeal.
Man accused of selling SIM card without ID proof gets bail
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court held that selling SIM cards without identity proof did not amount to extortion. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition seeking bail filed by K. Srikanth contending that he was innocent and is falsely mentioned in a case involving allegations of harassment, threats, and improper use of SIM cards under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act. The petitioner contended that the only allegation against him was providing SIM cards without proper identity proof, with no corroborative evidence. Counsel of the petitioner highlighted that the petitioner has been in custody since December 16, causing undue hardship to his family. Additionally, all material witnesses had been examined, and further detention was deemed unnecessary and brought to the attention of the judge of a prior bail application being dismissed by the trial court. On the other hand, the additional public prosecutor opposed the bail request, citing the ongoing investigation and asserting that granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate. After examining the submissions and records, the judge noted that the primary allegation against the petitioner was limited to providing SIM cards without identity proof, making Section 308(5) of the BNS inapplicable to the petitioner. Since a significant part of the investigation was complete and the petitioner had been in custody for an extended period, the judge deemed it fit to grant bail.
Siddipet collector asked to address R&R plea of 65+ single widows
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court directed the Siddipet district collector to address the grievances of single widows aged above 65 years, who were displaced under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act). The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Chirla Gangavva and 35 others, all residents of Vemulaghat village in Thoguta Mandal, who cited procedural lapses by the authorities during acquisition of their land under the Act. According to their representation, the authorities failed to issue necessary notices, provide a personal hearing, and comply with the provisions of the Act. The petitioners also contended that, despite submitting a detailed representation to the respondents on December 10, 2020, their rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) entitlements were neither reviewed nor granted. They emphasised that as they were living with their sons, who are considered adult members of their respective families, they should be treated as being eligible for R&R benefits. The petitioners sought a directive declaring the inaction of the authorities as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The judge observed that the respondents had failed to comply with the law laid down under the Act and had violated its provisions. Accordingly, the judge directed the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order within four months.
