Breather For Telangana University

Gudimalkapur mart told to stick to rules

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court directed the Gudimalkapur agriculture market committee to strictly adhere to the rules while issuing commission agent licences at the flower market in Hyderabad. The Hyderabad Wholesale Flowers Merchants Association in a writ challenged the action of the Gudimalkapur MAC in granting commission agent licences without allotting shops, sheds, or any space for carrying on business within the market yard. The association contended that the issuance of licences in the absence of physical space was contrary to the Agricultural Market Committee Rules and in violation of the Constitution. After hearing the submissions, the judge ordered notice to the authorities. Recording the contention of the petitioner, the judge directed the commissioner and director of agricultural marketing to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner association, conduct a necessary enquiry into the matter, and submit a report.

Pocso case convict not go get bail

The Telangana High Court refused to grant bail to a man convicted under the Pocso Act, holding that the offence was heinous in nature and that no grounds were made out for intervention at the stage of appeal. A two-judge bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy was hearing a bail petition filed by J. Krishnaiah, who challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, FAC Fast Track Special Sessions Judge for expeditious trial of rape and Pocso cases, Mahbubnagar. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was an unexplained delay of six days in lodging the complaint and that medical evidence did not disclose the presence of semen. It was argued that the trial court erred in invoking the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Pocso Act without establishing foundational facts, and that material witnesses were not examined. The petitioner pointed out that he was in judicial custody since July 17, 2025. Opposing the plea, the state contended that the victim was the daughter of the brother of the accused and contended that absence of semen traces did not negate the offence under the Pocso Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it was argued that the sole testimony of the victim was sufficient to sustain a conviction and that the scope of intervention at the stage of suspension of sentence was extremely limited. After hearing the submissions, the panel observed that the offence involved was grave and heinous. Holding that no case was made out to suspend the sentence or enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, the panel dismissed the bail petition pending disposal of the main appeal.