Hyderabad:The two panels of judges in the Telangana High Court, including Judges P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji, announced that the moment the person was arrested by the police for the purpose of the magistrate causing the detainee. Since then, individuals have been restricted in their personal freedom and their movements have been arrested because they are still under the control of the police. The panel addressed through Judge Sam Koshy, stressing that the arrest period must also be considered when calculating the prescribed 24-hour period. In other words, the 24-hour period should not be from the time the police formally record the arrest memorandum, but from the moment they were initially arrested or detained. The court is dealing with a habeas petition filed by T. Ramadevi, challenging the arrest of husband Srinivas Goud, as well as Sai Sharat, Sai Rohit and neighbor P. Shiva Charan, who was later sent to Chanchalguda prison. The court ruled that the people were arrested under the Telangana Protection Storage Protection (TSPDFE Act) of the Financial Institutions Act of 1999. The detainee is charged with a sentence under section 406, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (IPC) and the TSPDFE Act 5 reading. The team observed that two detainees, Sai Sharat and Srinivas Goud, were detained for 38 hours before giving birth before a magistrate. Therefore, a habeas order petition is allowed. The petitioner also argued that under the TSPDFE Act, only the special court notified under the Act had jurisdiction and therefore, even the initial remand process should be conducted before that special court (not before other magistrates). The court does not accept this argument. The state argues that under the TSPDFE Act, for the purpose of first remand, the detainee is allowed to be produced before the recent magistrate, rather than only before the noticed special court. Judge Sam Koshy agreed with this point, noting that Article 13 of the TSPDFE Act specifically states that even without a case, the special court can be aware of the crime. However, this does not mean that the first remand under section 167(1) of CRPC must be only before the Special Court. Reading Section 167 of the CRPC and Sections 13 and 14 of the TSPDFE Act, the Court concluded that the term “May” used in Article 13 (1) grants discretion rather than mandatory direction. While dealing with the constitutional provisions of Article 22, Justice Sam Koshy pointed out that even the Indian Constitution requires that all arrested and detained persons should be produced within 24 hours of the recent magistrate. Exceptions to this rule (if engraved in law) do not apply to this case.
Surgery to seek bail for wife’s surgery
The two-term judge panel of the Telangana High Court, which includes Justice Surepalli Nanda and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, directed the authorities to be related to a request for temporary bail filed by Routhu Poshetty Magam Poshetty and was convicted in the murder case. The petitioner contacted the High Court to demand a moratorium on sentence and temporary bail on the grounds that his wife’s scheduled surgery. The appeal challenged the August 2023 judgment, which was sentenced by Judge Nirmal’s main district and Sessions, who convicted the appellant under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court earlier rejected the application for suspending sentences and regular bail. The current intermediate application seeks temporary bail on humanitarian grounds, especially for the need to participate in a wife’s surgery. The judge directed the authorities to submit a ground report and adjourn the matter to the next hearing date.
Woman Farmer Gets Forest Act Relief
Justice Euthpalli Nanda of the High Court of Telangana instructed state authorities and forest officials not to deprive a female farmer of her agricultural land in the Badradri Kosaghgoudham area without following due process. Petitioner Punem Lalitha filed a written petition seeking protection from the eviction of four acres of agricultural land in Paloncha Mandal Lakshmidevipalli. She argued that the act of authorities expelling her was arbitrary, illegal and violation of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that she had previously contacted the court on matters and that the order in her favor was valid. Still, forest officials threatened to deprive her of no legal authority. The petitioner argued that she had been ploughing the land and had built a small house on it. The local panchayat allocated a house number and she paid house tax regularly. On the other hand, government defense lawyers believe that the petitioner may be deported and that the deportation will be carried out under the appropriate legal process under the provisions of the Forest Act of 1967. Taking into account these two submissions, the High Court has directed respondents to handle the petition by directing them to act strictly in accordance with legal procedures. The court also pointed out that if the petitioner is found to be an occupier on forest land, the authorities are free to initiate appropriate actions under the Forest Act.
