Telangana HC Refuses Bail in Ambedkar Statue Desecration Case

Hyderabad: Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Thursday refused to grant immediate bail to two persons accused of desecrating a statue of Dr B.R. Ambedkar for allegedly urinating on it, observing that such acts against revered national figures cannot be viewed lightly.

The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Kantamshetty Durgaprasad and another seeking regular bail in a case registered by Keesara Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri Commissionerate. According to the prosecution, the petitioners allegedly urinated on a statue of Dr Ambedkar situated within the police station limits, resulting in public outrage and hurting sentiments among members of the local community.

Opposing the plea, the state emphasised the seriousness of the allegations and their impact on public sentiment. Upon considering the material placed on record, the judge remarked that national heroes who occupy a place of great respect in society cannot be subjected to such indignities. Finding that the matter required further examination, the Court directed issuance of notice to the unofficial respondents and declined to grant interim bail at this stage.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the municipal authorities to unseal a residential building in Kondapur after prima facie finding that the premises were sealed without service of any order and without following the prescribed procedure.

The Judge was hearing a writ petition filed by G. Ujjwala Reddy challenging the action of the deputy commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, in sealing a residential property measuring 300 square yards situated at Ayyappa Society, Khanamet Village, Kondapur, Serilingampally. The petitioner contended that the sealing action was arbitrary and illegal, as no seizure or sealing order was issued or communicated. It was further submitted that no construction activity was being carried on at the property and that a detailed explanation was furnished in response to an earlier notice issued by the authorities.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that despite receiving the explanation, the authorities neither conducted a hearing nor passed any final order. Nevertheless, they proceeded to seal the premises in violation of the statutory procedure and applicable rules. After considering the submissions, Justice Bheemapaka granted interim relief directing the authorities to unseal the premises.