HC Junks Appeal on Directions to Municipality

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal on the regularisation of unauthorised construction by the Church of South India diocese of Dornakal. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Jalamani Nagaraju. The appellant challenged the direction issued to the Dornakal municipal commissioner to consider the church’s representation seeking permission for a structure already built, after affording both parties an opportunity of hearing. Despite objections that the Telangana Municipalities Act lacks provisions akin to those in the GHMC Act allowing such regularization, the judge passed an interim directive without delving into the merits of entitlement. The emphasis was on procedural fairness rather than validation of post-construction approval. In the appeal, the appellant argued that the direction could indirectly legitimise unauthorised construction. The panel declined to intervene, noting that the order merely mandated consideration of the representation in accordance with law. Since no final relief was granted and no adjudication on the legality of the construction was made, the appeal lacked substance and was dismissed.

Habeas corpus of Adivasi detenu dismissed

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ plea seeking production of a man allegedly detained and tortured by the Warangal police, observing that the detenu had since been produced before a magistrate and no material was placed to establish custodial torture. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was hearing a writ plea filed by Eesam Swarupa, a daily-wage labourer and wife of the detenu Eesam Prabhakar. The petitioner alleged that her husband, belonging to the Adivasi community, was illegally detained by the central crime station, Matwada, Warangal, from 4 am on July 25, without disclosure of grounds or access to food, clothing or legal counsel. The petitioner claimed that Prabhakar was subjected to custodial torture. Counsel for the petitioner relied on a vernacular newspaper report and contended that the detenu was beaten while in police custody. It was further contended that her house was raided and `2,000 in cash had gone missing, and that her journey to Warangal to meet her husband was impeded and distressing. The special government pleader opposing the plea submitted that the detenu had been apprehended in connection with a temple theft case and was in judicial custody. The state also contested the veracity of the newspaper report and placed on record a medical report showing no injuries. The panel observed that no credible material was presented to substantiate the allegations of custodial torture and held that such allegations could not rest on inference or unverified media reports. The panel noted that the medical examination report did not indicate signs of physical abuse, and since the detainee had been produced before the magistrate, there was no reason to keep the habeas corpus petition pending. The panel directed the special government pleader to verify the grievance regarding the alleged raid on her home and the missing cash, if any such incident occurred.

Accused in online cricket betting case gets bail

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court enlarged on bail four accused in an online cricket betting scam, observing that the stringent offence of ‘organised crime’ under provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) could not be invoked in the absence of prior charge sheets or criminal antecedents. The judge was hearing criminal petitions filed by Banavath Naveen and others. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant, a software employee, was defrauded of over Rs 1.25 crore through betting advertisements and WhatsApp groups and was induced to participate in rigged online games. Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel Vinod Kumar Deshpande contended that the petitioners were wrongfully implicated, had no direct involvement in the online gaming, and merely shared information or had their accounts misused by the main accused (A1). Specifically, it was argued that only one of the accused was linked with bank transactions totalling Rs 2.58 crore, which were carried out by A1 without his knowledge, while other petitioners had no financial dealings with the complainant. After examining the material on record, the judge found that the invocation of Section 111, which contemplates organised crime under BNS, was unsustainable, as no prior chargesheets were filed against the petitioners within the last 10 years, an essential prerequisite under the statute. Relying on a Kerala High Court judgment, the judge reiterated the need for the fulfilment of statutory thresholds before invoking the organised crime provisions. The judge noted that the petitioners had been in custody since June 2025, and that the investigation as against them was substantially complete. Accordingly, the judge enlarged the petitioners on conditional bail.