Telangana HC Grants Bail To Warangal Sub-Registrar in ACB Case

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court granted bail to Sub-Registrar in an ACB case alleging organised collection of bribes through private document writers at his office. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Jamalapuram Ramanarsimha Rao, who was arrayed as accused no.2 in the case.

The prosecution alleged that during a surprise check in Office of the Registrar, Warangal on April 2, about 20 unauthorised private document writers were found operating inside the office, and unaccounted cash of Rs 47,450 along with 70 pending documents and mobile phones were seized.

It was alleged that the document writers collected illegal gratification from the public and transferred the amounts through cash and UPI transactions as instructed by the accused. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the role attributed to accused No. 2 was lesser than that of accused No. 1, and that accused No. 1 was already granted bail by the trial court. The prosecution opposed bail, contending that the offences were serious, documents were yet to be collected and only 22 of 44 witnesses were examined.

The judge noted that accused No. 1 was granted bail, and that accused No. 2 was also taken into police custody. Observing that a need for further interrogation would not arise, the judge granted bail on execution of a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, and directed the petitioner to appear before the authority every Monday and Friday until further orders.

Justice G.M. Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court quizzed the state as to how a draft notification could be treated as final for declaring an area of Eturnagaram forest as an eco-sensitive area.

The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Baddi Laxmaiah and other agriculturalists from Eturnagaram, challenging rejection of permission to continue sand de-casting operations from their patta lands.

The petitioners contended that sand de-casting operations were necessary for the upcoming Kharif season and that the activity was agricultural in nature and not commercial mining. It was argued that all permissions, including from the mining department, were already secured except clearance from the forest department.

The petitioners further contended that the sand would not be sold to any private party, but only to Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation. Reliance was also placed on an earlier division bench ruling holding that sand de-casting from patta lands abutting river areas would not amount to commercial mining and would not require environmental clearance.

The forest department contended that a draft notification declaring the area as a Wildlife Sanctuary was already published and, since all formalities were completed, the area must be treated as an eco-sensitive area even before issuance of the final notification.

The forest department further objected to the use of JCBs and tractors, contending that such vehicles would pass through forest areas and damage flora and fauna. The petitioners responded that permissions granted by other departments permitted use of tractors and JCBs and that the agreement with Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation also contemplated use of loading equipment.

Recording the facts, the judge stated that a draft notification cannot be basis for restrictions on de-casting. The judge granted interim permission to the petitioners to carry out sand de-casting operations to an extent of 66,000 cubic metres within the permitted geo-coordinates, under the supervision of Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation and in full compliance with the agreement. The judge directed the forest department to file a counter.

A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court came to the rescue of an agriculturist by staying the proposed sale of his agricultural land by the Karimnagar District Cooperative Central Bank.

The panel comprising Justice T. Madhavi Devi and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a writ plea filed by Bolli Rakesh Khanna, challenging a SARFAESI notice dated April 10, by which the bank proposed to sell his immovable property on May 28 for recovery of a loan amount of about Rs. 10 lakh.

The panel queried whether the petitioner was an agriculturist and whether the land was dry or wet agricultural land. It observed that the bank would need to take such factors into consideration while proceeding against the petitioner. Recording the willingness of the petitioner to clear the dues, the panel stayed the sale subject to payment of Rs. 2 lakh every month.

The last instalment would include the interest component. The panel made it clear that in case of default in any month, the interim protection would stand vacated automatically and the bank would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.