A two-judge panel of the High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavali, dismissed a PIL contesting the transfer of 95 acres of property in Sy. No.191/1 of Kollur Village in Sy. No.30/1 under non-existent survey numbers according to revenue records.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by Madhusudhan Reddy, who claimed that the land was transferred to a private respondent, who then sold it to BHEL Employees Model Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. The panel determined that when the disagreement arose, the BHEL Employees Model Mutually Aided Society requested that the property be removed off the prohibitory list. “Once the matter has been adjudicated, it cannot be adjudicated again and again,” the panel said, dismissing the petition.
ALSO READ:Telangana High Court ordered Waqf Board to evict encroachers in 4 months
Bail was granted in the case of a sexual assault.
Chepyala Kodanda Rama Reddy Ramananda of Prabhu Petadipathi Sai Dhamam Ashramam in Pedda Paravathapur, Bhongir District, was granted bail by Telangana High Court Justice K Lalita on Wednesday. A devotee filed a complaint against Chepyala Kodanda Rama Reddy Ramananda, alleging that the accused misbehaved with her and sexually exploited her while she was a student at the ashram. She further claimed that the accused sexually attacked her again in 2018 when they visited Shirdi. Given that the petitioner had been imprisoned for 45 days and that the victim’s statement had already been recorded, Justice Lalitha granted bail to the accused on the condition that the accused execute a personal bond with two sureties for Rs 20,000.
ALSO READ: Meta Agrees to Pay $90 Million to Settle User Tracking Lawsuit
The accused was urged to surrender.
Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court ordered Kamma Srinivas, director of a subsidiary of TRS MP Nama Nageswara Rao’s Madhucon Group, Kancharla Srihari Babu and Omni Medi company MD Kancharla Srihari Babu, who is accused of mishandling funds allotted for the construction of a 4-lane road on NH-33 from Ranchi to Jamshedpur, to surrender before the Designated Court within ten days
The designated court was directed to reconsider the remand motion in conformity with the law. The Department of Enforcement has met the twin requirements of Section 45 of the PMLA. The prosecution claims that the accused are refusing to cooperate with the investigation. According to the officials, there is a strong probability of tampering with evidence and tainting the record in collaboration with the other accused.
In the current case, because there is some discrepancy between CrPC and PMLA rules, the judge remarked while throwing aside the MSJ rulings in both cases and asking him to reconsider the remand motion submitted by ED. When the ED apprehended the accused and brought them before the ED court, the Sessions Judge refused to accept the remand report provided by the ED and returned it. He believes that under CrPC section 41-A, police must issue a prior notice to the accused in all situations where IPC provisions impose jail terms of less than seven years. Because that was not done, the trial court judge stated that the accused would not be sent to judicial remand.
According to the judge, ED operates under the PMLA, a specific law. The ED court lacked the authority to dismiss the remand applications. Economic offences must be taken severely, he added, adding that the PMLA contains sufficient protections to protect people from wrongful arrests and to punish unfair police. The accused’s anticipatory bail applications were denied by the judge.
(This story has been sourced from a third-party syndicated feed, agencies. Raavi Media accepts no responsibility or liability for the dependability, trustworthiness, reliability, and data of the text. Raavi Media management/ythisnews.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content at its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.)
