Telangana Hc Says Cops Protected From Prosecution in Duty-linked Firing

Hyderabad:Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court called for a balance between citizens’ rights and bona fide action of the police. She upheld the protection extended to certain police officials who were the beneficiaries of protection against frivolous prosecution. While the judge held that a prior sanction was mandatory, she pointed out that such a sanction would be relevant in cases where the alleged action against the police officer was reasonably connected to the discharge of his official duties. The judge dismissed a criminal petition filed by Lateef Mohammed Khan, de facto complainant. The case relates to an incident on the night of May 20–21, 2003, when police officers P. Sreedhar Reddy, assistant commissioner of police, and N. Gopal, a constable, were on patrol and attempted to intercept suspected thieves. A magistrate had earlier taken cognisance based on a protest petition filed by the petitioner, but the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak, set aside that order, holding that the act was connected to official duty and required sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC. The petitioner questioned the order of the Session Courts, which upset the order of the magistrate and effectively ensured that the police officer had no statutory protection. Upholding the revisional court’s decision, Justice Sridevi held that the firing had a clear nexus with the officers’ official duties and therefore required prior sanction under the CrPC before any criminal prosecution could proceed. Finding no illegality in the revisional court’s order, the judge concluded that the cognisance taken by the magistrate was unsustainable and dismissed the petition.

HC to hear plea on IEI council elections

Justice Nagesh Bheempaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the rejection of a candidate’s nomination for election to the post of council member of the Telangana centre, Institution of Engineers (India) (IEI), Hyderabad, and for council member (environmental division). Dr G. Rameshwar Rao, in his writ plea, contended that the rejection of his nomination pursuant to the election notification in 2025 was arbitrary and illegal. He sought a direction that his nomination be accepted and that he be permitted to contest the upcoming council elections. The petitioner argued that the rejection on the ground of his alleged ineligibility for “holding any office of profit in the institution or any of its centres” was contrary to earlier judicial precedents, including orders of the Telangana High Court, which upheld candidates’ rights to contest IEI elections under similar circumstances. The respondents sought time to obtain instructions.

Tahsildar granting tenancy succession order upheld

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea challenging an order of the tahsildar, Farooqnagar mandal, declaring 22 individuals as legal successors to the protected tenant of land admeasuring about 33 acres at Chattanpally. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by M.A. Razak Hussain, who contended that his father initiated tenancy termination proceedings in 1968, and in 1974, the tenancy of Gopoji (original tenant) over the entire original landholding of nearly 60 acres was terminated. The respondents successfully contended before the tahsildar that the termination applied only to a specific portion of 27 acres and 17 guntas, and not the entire property. It was argued that protected status, and thus his heritable rights, persisted over the remaining land. The judge observed that, as per 1974 records, the tenancy was indeed terminated only on a part of the land, and the rights of the original tenant over certain survey numbers were intact. The judge, while examining whether a tahsildar was empowered to grant succession, held that while earlier precedent barred revenue authorities from deciding questions over disputed succession, in this specific case, where there were no rival claims among the heirs, the tahsildar was perfectly within his authority under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950, to issue the succession certificate. Justice Alishetty rejected the claim of the petitioner of a violation of natural justice and observed that the findings of the tahsildar qua the petitioner engaging in delaying tactics by repeatedly seeking documents already in his possession from prior litigation. The judge ruled that the writ plea was not maintainable as the petitioner bypassed the statutorily alternative remedy of an appeal to the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Act. The judge made it clear that the present ruling will not preclude him from filing the appropriate appeal in accordance with the law.

HC refuses bail to two in fraud case

The Telangana High Court refused to grant bail to two accused in a financial fraud case, observing that the relief sought to set aside the police custody order could not be entertained in a bail petition. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Chilukoti Suresh and Bunga Amruth, arrayed as accused of alleged offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery. The accused contended that they were remanded to judicial custody without valid reasons, though the offences were punishable with less than seven years’ imprisonment. They argued that no prior notice was served under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates issuance of a written direction to appear when arrest is not necessary. The petitioners contended that the police custody application was allowed even while their regular bail petition was pending before the same court. On perusal of the record, Justice Sujana noted that the remand report did not disclose valid grounds for judicial custody and merely cited the absconding accused as a reason. The judge declined to set aside the police custody order, holding that such relief cannot be granted in a petition filed for regular bail. The judge accordingly directed the trial court to take up and dispose of the pending regular bail petition of the petitioners on the same day as per its listing.