Telangana HC Grants Bail to Sigachi Industries MD in Sangareddy Blast Case

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has granted bail to Amith Raj Sinha, managing director and chief executive officer of Sigachi Industries, who had been in judicial custody for over a month after being arrested in connection with the June 30, 2025, blast at the company’s Sangareddy unit that claimed 54 lives and left 28 workers grievously injured.

Justice K. Sujana allowed the bail petition, directing Sinha to execute a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy. The High Court ordered him to comply with conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and strictly adhere to all imposed conditions.

The High Court noted that the allegations levelled against Sinha were that he along with other accused had not taken proper care even after being informed by employees regarding issues with machines which were required to be changed. The court found that the report showed that the fire was initiated in sealing machines, but it is not mentioned that the sealing machines had become old and that there were defects due to which the accident occurred.

Considering that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet filed and the petitioner was cooperating with the investigation, the court was of the opinion that custodial interrogation of Singh was not required.

Justice Sujana also granted anticipatory bail to other senior officials of the company, including whole-time director and executive director Rabindra Prasad Sinha, independent directors Bindu Vinodhan, Dhanalaxmi Guntaka, and other, who were allegedly absconding. The court directed them to surrender before the Sangareddy magistrate within two weeks from February 2, and ordered their release on furnishing bonds of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties each, subject to standard conditions.

No Relief from HC: Saidabad Residents Declared Encroachers on Temple Land

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim relief to residents and plot owners of Survey No. 110, Saidabad, who had challenged the order of the Endowment Tribunal declaring them encroachers on land belonging to the Sri Bansuri Krishna Mandir, Saidabad, an adopted temple of the Sri Hanuman Devasthanam, Karmanghat.

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao was not inclined to intervene in the tribunal`s orders dated October 30, 2025.

Several residents and plot owners who filed the batch of appeals before the High Court challenging the tribunal’s orders claimed that the land originally formed part of an inam granted about 80 years ago by the then Nizam to one Bhagawan Das Pujari, which was later sold to Jagannath Prasad Shukla.

According to them, Shukla’s son Dr Niranjan Prasad, obtained an occupancy rights certificate (ORC) for 1.2 acres in 1992 under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, following which a layout was formed and plots sold to various purchasers. They asserted that the temple concerned was situated in Survey No. 84 of Karmanghat village and had no connection with Survey No. 110 of Saidabad.

Opposing the plea, government counsel Bhukya Mangilal Naik, along with standing counsel Ch. Satish Kumar for the endowment department, submitted that the land belonged to the temple and contended that no permission existed for alienation of endowment land and that the ORC had been wrongly granted.

On remand, the revenue divisional officer had in 201,3 cancelled the ORC and issued it in favour of the temple. The department stated that possession of about 2.1 acres of open land had been taken and was presently used for parking by devotees.

Telangana High Court Orders State to Frame Policy on Meat Sales Near Temples and Schools

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has directed the state government to frame a comprehensive policy regulating the sale and consumption of meat and non-vegetarian food within a specified distance of 100 metres from places of public worship, educational institutions and hospitals.

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the High Court emphasised the need of such policy/guidelines in the absence of any specific provision of law or rules which prohibit sale/consumption of meat/non-vegetarian food in the vicinity of a place of public worship.

The judge noted that due to the absence of such rules, the burden shifted to the police to maintain law and order, when religious sentiments arose, or to deal with traffic issues.

The High Court made it clear that policy should be framed keeping in view the religious sentiments of the devotees of concerned temple or place of worship, the people of particular faith, serenity, hygiene, law and order and traffic issues.

The court issued the directions while disposing of a writ petition filed by Bipin Ramdas Ippakayal, who alleged illegal intervention by the authorities in his proposed restaurant business at Red Hills, Hyderabad, which reportedly situated less than 100 metres of the 100-yaer-old Hanuman Temple.

The petitioner contended that he had taken the premises on lease for running a restaurant and had obtained the licences from the GHMC and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). He alleged that GHMC and police officials were repeatedly obstructing renovation works without following due process of law, despite the business not having commenced. He alleged that another non-vegetarian restaurant was operating in the same building without facing similar action, indicating arbitrariness and discrimination.

Midde Arun Kumar, counsel for GHMC, submitted that the provisional licence was obtained by the petitioner through self-certification and registration certificate, wherein it was shown as “eggs and egg products”. When the court asked about the specific provision to prohibit the establishment of non-veg restaurants near places of public worship, unlike restrictions applicable to liquor shops, government counsel for home submitted that there was no such similar provision under the GHMC Act.

The court observed that while there was no express legal bar under the GHMC Act, concerns relating to religious sentiments, serenity, hygiene, traffic and public order could not be ignored. In the absence of a clear statutory framework, the court directed the state to frame policy guidelines within four weeks, including a requirement of obtaining a no-objection certificate from the local police.

Until such a policy is framed, the court ordered maintenance of status quo with respect to the petitioner`s establishment.

HC heard the appeal of ED against the Ramky Pharma

Hyderabad: Ramky Pharma on Tuesday informed the Telangana High Court that the CBI case registered against it in the matters of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy disproportionate assets was politically motivated, and asserted that the company had no political links.

The Enforcement Directorate registered a case against Ramky Pharma based on the FIR of the CBI in the Jagan Mohan Reddy, and seized its assets. The action was declared invalid by the Appellate Tribunal. Challenging the order, the ED had filed an appeal.

On Tuesday, the matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Nandikonda Narsing Rao. Senior advocate S. Niranjan Reddy submitted that Ramky had secured the Visakhapatnam Pharma City project through global tenders during the tenure of the Chandrababu Naidu government in undivided AP.

He explained that a Supreme Court-appointed committee later directed the creation of a half-kilometre buffer zone outside the Pharma City as part of environmental safeguards. During the Y.S. Rajashekar Reddy regime, the buffer-zone norms were revised from 250 metres to 50 metres in accordance with the tender agreement, failing which most of the land would have been lost. The court adjourned the hearing to February 12 for the ED to submit its contentions.