Telangana HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Nine in Khanapur Kidnap Case

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to nine petitioners, including minors, in connection with a kidnapping case registered at Khanapur Police Station in Nirmal district. The judge was hearing the criminal complaint filed by Bojja Thirupathi and eight others. According to the prosecution, the actual complainant, Kashaveni Lathika, alleged that the petitioners forced her into a car and assaulted her. The prosecution also stated that the petitioners kidnapped her and threatened her with dire consequences. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case arose out of a marital dispute between the complainant and her second husband regarding the custody of her minor daughter. It was alleged that the petitioners, who are neighbors and relatives, merely persuaded the complainant to visit his sick child and falsely took part in the crime due to personal grudge. After hearing both sides, the judge observed that the petitioners and the complainant were close relatives and the incident was due to domestic discord rather than criminal intent. Taking into account the relationship between the parties, the nature of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, the judge decided that the custodial interrogation was unnecessary and ordered his release on conditional bail.

HC accepts daily bet request on salary

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court filed a writ plea challenging the inaction of district collector and district tribal development officer Suryapet in not considering the representation of a daily wage worker in granting minimum time scale at par with similarly situated workers. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Ramavath Nandulal, a daily wage worker at the Government Tribal Welfare Boys’ Hostel in Suryapet district. The petitioner sought directions from the respondent authorities to extend the minimum time scale benefit of Rs 19,000 per month at par with his counterparts working in Government Tribal Welfare Hostels in Suryapet and Nalgonda districts. The petitioner alleged that despite filing a representation, the authorities ignored his claim and failed to implement the directions of the high court, which mandated that wages should be paid at par with regular employees performing similar duties. The judge directed the government lawyer to seek instructions.

HC supports promotions of ST officers

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court ruled that if the state consequently exercises its power to impose reservations on seniority, it cannot override such promotions through administrative orders. The judge quashed two government notifications seeking to review promotions given to Scheduled Tribe officers in the State Secretariat, holding that the State cannot overturn entrenched seniority protected under the Constitution. The judge allowed a series of writ petitions filed by S. Laxmi Bai and three others, all ST employees, and restored their promotions and resulting seniority with full benefits. The petitioners, who were promoted to posts such as joint secretary and divisional officer, argued that the government notes led to reviving the abolished ‘catch-up rule’ and undermining reservation for promotions under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution. They argued that Telangana had already completed the constitutional exercise ordered by the Supreme Court and further scrutiny was illegal. The judge criticized the State for rejecting the petitioners’ statements without justification and finding the action arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Habeas corpus for detainee denied under JJ Act

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition seeking the release of two women rescued during an operation in Yadadri. The bench dismissed the writ petition filed by Kamsani Anjali alleging that two women were illegally detained at State House in Madhuranagar in Yousufguda. Speaking through Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, the bench held that the petitioner did not have any basis to approach the court on habeas corpus plea. The panel observed that his status as a friend was uncertain and he could not be trusted. Special Government Advocate Swaroop Oorilla apprised the court of the details of the area where the petitioner lives and also pointed out the difficulties of the detainees possibly being pushed back into the sex trade. He stated that the petitioner resides in a sensitive area. Swaroop Oorilla’s contention is that the protection of victims at the State House cannot be declared illegal. The panel also considered the Aftercare program for victims under the Juvenile Justice Act. The bench did not like the petitioner’s lawyer Vasudha Nagaraj’s argument that after becoming a major, the law automatically grants the prisoner the right to be released and gives the victims the right to choose their own lifestyle. Rejecting the habeas corpus petition, the panel also said that habeas corpus is a matter of high moral nature and must be motivated by the intention of releasing the detained person. Applying various principles, the bench held that the victim was not in illegal detention and therefore the writ petition could be dismissed.