Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday granted bail to former Karnataka minister and mining baron Gali Janardhan Reddy in the cash-for-bail scam. He will, however, continue to be in jail in judicial custody at Bengaluru in connection with the illegal mining cases registered against him and his Obulapuram Mining Company at Hyderabad and Bengaluru by the CBI.
The Anti Corruption Bureau of united AP had registered two cases against Gali Janardhan Reddy for paying Rs 9.5 crore as bribe to suspended judge T. Pattabhirama Rao for bail and attempting to bribe the judge.
The CBI had a suspicion after Pattabhirama Rao granted bail to Janardhan Reddy in the OMC case in May 2012, even as he rejected bail to Y. Srilakshimi, an IAS officer and another accused in OMC case.
He moved the High Court for bail after the special judge for ACB cases rejected his application earlier this month.
Justice M. Seetha Rama Murti granted the bail on condition that the investigation in both cases are completed and other persons in the case. including judicial officers.
While granting the bail, the judge directed Janardhan Reddy to be available before the investigation agency and appear before it whenever needed and furnish relevant sureties before the ACB Court to obtain bail.
Andhra Pradesh land order suspended over master plan
In a major setback to the Andhra Pradesh government, the Hyderabad High Court on Thursday granted interim suspension of a letter issued by the government not to approve major land development projects such as layouts, group developments etc., in the purview of VGTM, the Urban Development Authority, till the preparation of a Master Plan for the new capital.
Justice M.S. Ramach-andra Rao was dealing with a petition by Sri Chaitanya Constructions of Hyderabad challenging the action of the Vijayawada Guntur Tenali Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (VGTMUDA) in not permitting them to develop layout in Sunkollu village of Nuzvid mandal in Krishna district.
The company represented by its managing partner Chaitanya Chinnam submitted that the authorities did not permit them to develop the layout due to a letter of the state government issued on September 17, 2014, in which the authority was directed not to permit any layouts. According to the letter, on September 4, 2014, the government made a statement on comprehensive development and location of capital for AP in the Assembly and declared that the capital city will be located around Vijayawada and proposed to go for land pooling to procure the land for building capital city.
The government has directed the authority not to grant any permission for layouts and group developments till preparation of master plan as provided under Section 6(3) of the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act 1975. The petitioner contended that the relevant section applies to any Master Plan that is in force and not for any plan that is contemplated in near future.
After perusing the Act, the judge declared that the letter was without jurisdiction and the letter cannot be supported on basis of provisions of statute and hence needs to be suspended.
While admitting the petition, the judge issued notices to the respondents to file their counter affidavits.
Andhra Pradesh police told to avoid illegal detention
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the Hyderabad High Court on Thursday cautioned the Andhra Pradesh police that it will order a probe into their alleged illegal detentions.
The bench was dealing with a habeas corpus petition by Besai Veeramma and three other women from Visakhapatnam Agency area to direct the police to produce their husbands who were allegedly detained by the police, before the court.
They submitted that police detained B. Arjun, B. Bheemdhar, G. Rama Rao and S, Rama Rao, and their whereabouts are not known to them till date.
When this plea came up for hearing on December 2, the bench asked the advocate-general to place the relevant information before the bench.
The AG on Thursday, while submitting that husbands of petitioners, placed certain documents before the bench.
After perusing the papers, the bench found conflicting versions of the police in the arrest and asked the AG if the state wants the bench to believe that the current petition was by the women in anticipation of the detention of their husbands.
The bench said “it is a clear case where you are trying to legalize the detention after the petition was filed. Please advise your officers to be truthful at least before the court at this stage. If they try to play any more tricks, there will be serious consequences”.
The AG urged the court to grant time till Tuesday to him to look into the issue.
The bench made it clear that if he fails to appear on before the bench on Tuesday, it will order a probe into the matter.
The bench also directed him to furnish the details of arrest along with the details whether the police had complied with the procedure laid down under Cr PC while arresting the four persons.
