Lifer Suspended for Convict in Pranay Murder Case

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court suspended the life sentence of a convict in the Pranay murder case, citing his advanced age, prolonged incarceration, and the absence of specific overt acts attributed to him. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy was hearing an application filed by Thirunagaru Sravan Kumar, Accused No. 6, who was convicted for murder and criminal conspiracy in the killing of Pranay, a Dalit youth who married outside his caste.

The panel noted that in the complaint lodged by the wife of the deceased prior to the incident seeking police protection, no allegation was made against the applicant. The panel observed that allegations against him emerged only during trial and that key prosecution witnesses did not attribute any specific overt act to him apart from alleging conspiracy. The panel observed that the documentary material relied upon by the prosecution, including registered deeds, would require detailed scrutiny at the stage of final hearing of the appeal.

Taking into account the age of the petitioner, about 60 years, the period of incarceration already undergone since March 10, 2025, apart from an earlier spell of custody during investigation, and the pendency of the appeal, the panel held that continued incarceration was not warranted at this stage. Accordingly, the panel suspended the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the petitioner and ordered his release on bail, subject to conditions, pending disposal of the criminal appeal.

Patient’s death: Hospital told to preserve records

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed Renova Century Hospital, Banjara Hills, to preserve medical records, including CCTV footage and staff attendance details, in a writ petition alleging medical negligence resulting in the death of a cancer patient. The judge was dealing a writ petition filed by B. Napthi Kumar Reddy.

According to the petitioner, his mother was undergoing cancer treatment at the respondent hospital when, on February 5, 2025, the medical team of the hospital allegedly administered the drug Kadcyla, manufactured by Genentech (US), without adhering to the prescribed protocol. The petitioner contended that shortly after the drug was administered, the patient began exhibiting signs of cardiac distress. Despite repeated requests for immediate medical intervention, the hospital staff allegedly failed to respond for nearly 40 minutes, following which she suffered a cardiac arrest and died. Reliance was placed on the label warnings of the drug which mandated continuous monitoring during and after infusion for infusion-related or hypersensitivity reactions.

Advocate S. Sahil Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, alleged inaction on the part of the district medical officer in failing to consider and act upon the representations of the petitioner seeking an investigation. Taking note of the seriousness of the allegations and the need to protect the integrity of evidence, the judge directed the hospital to preserve all relevant records and directed the district medical officer to consider the representations of the petitioner and posted the matter for further hearing.

HC steps in on plea by accused

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court directed police authorities not to intervene in the personal liberty of two individuals by issuing repeated summons without any lawful or tenable ground, emphasising that investigative powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by M. Ajay Kumar and another, who questioned the action of the Cyberabad economic offences wing (EOW) police in issuing repeated notices under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The petitioners complained of arbitrary and illegal conduct by the investigating officer, contending that they were not accused in the crime and were, at best, witnesses to a document registered several years earlier. Sharath Kumar, counsel for the petitioners, alleged that certain retired police officers were in the business of attending police stations to negotiate real estate matters and said calling for the recording of the CCTV footage would establish this. Counsel contended that the document was alleged to be fabricated, but the petitioners had no role whatsoever in any such fabrication.

Despite this, the investigating officer continued to issue notices without justification. It was alleged that the police were misusing their authority to pressurise the petitioners into settling disputes that were essentially civil in nature, resulting in harassment and unlawful interference with their personal liberty. Opposing the plea, the government pleader contended that the petitioners were involved in fabrication of a sale deed and that the investigation was being carried out strictly in accordance with law. It was argued that the writ plea was premature and unfounded, as the investigation was necessary to ascertain the role of the petitioners. After hearing both sides, the judge directed that the police shall not summon or interfere with the petitioners without any tenable and lawful ground. The judge underscored that investigative agencies must scrupulously follow the procedure established by law. The judge further observed that, if the presence of the petitioners is genuinely required for investigation, the police must issue a proper notice clearly specifying the purpose, necessity and timing of such appearance.