The judge held that all the FIRs in the present matters were registered by Gopalapuram Police Station and formed part of a continuing series of acts.
Hyderabad: Telangana High Court granted statutory bail to a medical practitioner facing multiple criminal cases related to alleged fraudulent surrogacy arrangements. He was dealing with five revision cases filed by Dr. Athaluri alias Pachipala Namratha after the Magistrate refused her statutory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petitioner contended that she had been in judicial custody since July 27, 2025, and that all the crimes registered against her arose out of a common chain of surrogacy-related transactions. She argued that her custody in the first case must be treated as deemed custody in the connected crimes, making the statutory period for filing charge sheets expire long ago. The judge, relying on judicial precedents held that when multiple connected cases originate from the same police station, custody in one case must be treated as custody in all. The judge held that all the FIRs in the present matters were registered by Gopalapuram Police Station and formed part of a continuing series of acts. The judge noted that the investigating authorities failed to show the petitioner’s remand in the connected crimes despite her being in custody when the FIRs were registered. Such omission, the judge held, cannot defeat the accused’s indefeasible right to default bail. The judge observed that the statutory periods in the cases ranging between 81 and 95 days from the respective FIR dates had expired without the filing of charge sheets, entitling the accused to bail as a matter of right. Accordingly, the judge allowed all five criminal revision cases.
HC freezes TU recruitment cancellation
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court suspended the operation of a single-judge order that set aside the 2012 teaching recruitment notifications issued by Telangana University. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a batch of writ appeals filed by Dr M. Satyanarayana and others challenging the order passed by the single judge. The writ appeals arise from recruitment notifications issued in May 2012 for teaching posts across various departments. The appellants contended that the executive council approved the recruitment process in November 2011, roster approvals were obtained from the State government, and selections were finalised and approved by the university's competent bodies in early 2013. Appointment orders were issued and several candidates joined service. They argued that the learned single judge erred in invalidating the recruitment solely on the premise that the five-year integrated courses in Applied Economics and Pharmaceutical Chemistry were discontinued on April 27, 2012. The appellants contended that while admissions for new batches were proposed to be stopped, the integrated courses continued for existing students, and later academic and executive bodies ratified their continuation. They further contended that the writ petitioners themselves participated in the recruitment process and approached the court only after they were not selected and therefore lacked locus to challenge the notification. The panel observed that the issues required examination and suspended the impugned order pending adjudication.
Scheduled areas tag stands: HC
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea challenging the classification of Gudur and Ayodhyapuram villages in Mahbubabad district as Scheduled Areas, holding that clerical errors in the 1950 Presidential Order cannot nullify their notified status. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Kathi Swamy and nine others. The petitioners contended that their names did not expressly appear in the Scheduled Areas (Part-B States) Order and asserted that treating them as Scheduled Areas deprived them of rights relating to land registrations and eligibility to contest local body elections. They relied on Census population data and argued that omission of village names entitled them to be treated as non-Scheduled Area residents. Opposing the plea, the State produced records showing that both villages were notified as tribal areas in 1949 under the Hyderabad Tribal Areas Regulation and submitted that their names in the 1950 Presidential Order appeared with spelling variations “Goarur” for Gudur and “Radhiapur” for Ayodhyapuram. It was further submitted that corrections, if any, could only be made by the President of India and not by judicial review. A 1978 communication from the district collector was also relied upon to affirm their continuous recognition as Scheduled Areas. Accepting the State’s submissions, the judge held that typographical variations cannot override constitutional protections extended to Scheduled Areas and observed that the petitioners had not challenged the Presidential Order itself. Finding the claim barred by an unexplained delay spanning over seven decades and contrary to the constitutional mandate safeguarding tribal interests, the judge dismissed the writ plea.
HC flags mishandled registration papers
Justice K. Sharath of the Telangana High Court flagged serious procedural lapses after learning that original title deeds of a landowner, were allegedly handed over to another person and called for a detailed response from the Registration Wing. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Chittireddy Kishan Reddy, who claimed that despite purchasing one acre of land in Survey No. 640, Manoharabad Village, Medak District, through five registered sale deeds, the officials failed to return his documents and instead allegedly gave them to another individual, reportedly an advocate. It was contended that the act amounted to a blatant breach of statutory duty and a serious violation of registration procedure, demonstrating “reckless disregard for legality” and compromising land record integrity. Expressing prima facie concern over the mishandling of original title documents, the judge directed the authorities to file a detailed affidavit explaining how the lapse occurred.
