YouTube Channel Owner Wins Case

Hyderabad:Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a YouTube channel owner who was booked for uploading a press conference conducted by a BJP spokesperson. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Gunda Siva Ram Reddy, owner of GSR TV Telugu and accused in a crime registered at Karimnagar I Town police station, facing charges under defamation and other provisions of IPC. The judge observed that the case amounted to a violation of the right to free speech and was procedurally unsustainable. The FIR was registered against the petitioner under sections of the IPC, following a complaint that the uploaded video contained remarks critical of the Karimnagar police commissioner and could incite communal tension. The judge noted that the petitioner merely broadcast the press conference on his channel, which was telecast by other news outlets. The judge pointed out that for the offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC, a complaint must be filed by the aggrieved person as per Section 199 CrPC. In this case, the FIR was filed by a sub-inspector, not the allegedly defamed person. The judge also found no specific allegations or independent provocation by the petitioner and held that the offences under IPC were not made out either. Observing that free speech cannot be criminalised unless it posed a genuine threat to public order, the judge concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of process.

Couple accuses police of settlement bid

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the alleged high-handed actions of Chintapally police, who allegedly aided a private party in harassing a couple over lawfully owned agricultural land. The judge was hearing the writ plea filed by Jada Kalyan Yakaiah, media consultant, and his wife Shilpa Chakraborty, a television artiste. The petitioners would contend that despite purchasing around 32 acres of agricultural land in Kurmed from Mohd. Abdul Aziz through registered sale deeds in 2017 and further acquiring rights through a mortgage deed in 2019, they were being harassed by the vendor with the support of local police. The petitioners contended that the civil court had granted permanent injunctions and police protection orders in their favour as early as 2017 and again in 2022. Nevertheless, police officers, particularly the station house officer and sub-inspector of Chintapally were allegedly interfering in their possession, forcing “settlement talks” at the police station, and unlawfully surveying their land at the behest of the private respondent. The petitioners contended that the conduct of the police amounts to gross abuse of power, in violation of court orders, settled law, and the Constitution. They cited multiple written complaints and FIRs previously registered against the private respondent and contended that the support of police for him was politically motivated and unlawful. Justice Vinod Kumar directed the government pleader to obtain instructions from the police officials and posted the matter for further hearing.

Drug case accused fails to get bail

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by an accused seeking bail in a high-profile drug manufacturing case involving seizure of over 136 kilograms of mephedrone. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Deepak Bhagat, accused in a case under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that on December 21, 2022, DRI officials raided a drug manufacturing unit at Chengicherla, Telangana, and apprehended six individuals, including the petitioner, who were found manufacturing mephedrone. The raid led to the seizure of 136.275 kilograms of the substance, along with drug-processing equipment, raw materials, semi-finished product, and vehicles purportedly used for transportation. It was contended that the petitioner was caught red-handed and was in conscious possession of the contraband. The DRI pointed out that he was named in another case involving seizure of 661.75 kilograms of mephedrone in Yamunanagar, Haryana. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused was falsely based solely on the confession of co-accused, and that the seized substance had not been clinically confirmed as mephedrone. He relied on bail granted to other accused by the High Court in 2024, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The judge observed that the quantity involved was far in excess of the 50-gram threshold for commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, and the petitioner’s prior involvement in a similar offence was a relevant consideration. Citing the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the Supreme Court’s rulings on bail in cases involving commercial quantity, the judge held that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for bail. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the criminal petition.

Acquitted staffer entitled to service benefit

Justice Surepalli Nanda set aside an order issued by the district educational officer (DEO), Bhadradri Kothagudem, which treated the suspension period of a school assistant at BS ZPHS Mylaram Laxmidevipally as eligible leave despite his acquittal in a Pocso case. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by Jajjara Lingaiah, challenging the DEO's order that classified his suspension period from December 2020 to July 2021 as leave, despite his acquittal in the criminal and an earlier favourable judgment. The judge noted that the petitioner stood acquitted in a Pocso-related Special Sessions case in August 2021 and, under the Telangana Fundamental Rules, the employee was entitled to be treated as "on duty" for the period, along with consequential benefits. The DEO ignored this contention and issued the impugned order arbitrarily, without sufficient reasoning or justification. The government pleader argued that even after acquittal, the competent authority retained discretion to assess an employee's conduct and issue appropriate orders concerning suspension. The judge held that the impugned order lacked cogent rationale or explanation for the conclusions drawn and rejected the government's reliance on Supreme Court precedents, finding them inapplicable to the facts of the case. The judge concluded that the order was arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the judge directed the respondents to treat the petitioner’s suspension period as “on duty” and to expunge the warning from his record.