Land grab: Telangana HC seeks govt stand on bail plea of ex-MLA
Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court has directed the public prosecutor to seek instructions from the authorities concerned regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Gandra Venkata Ramana Reddy, a former MLA, and two others in an alleged land grabbing case. The plea has been adjourned to April 30.
The case revolves around a private complaint filed by one Nagavelli Rajalingamurthy under Section 200 of the CrPC, alleging conspiracy to illegally occupy land measuring two acres in Sy No 209 of Pulluriramaiahpally village in Jayashankar Bhupalpally district, designated as Cheruvu Shikam land of Gorental Kunta.
According to the complainant, Gandra Venkata Ramana Reddy, along with others, threatened officials and constructed a temple and a commercial complex in the property.
In response, the petitioners contended that the land was allocated for the temple construction with funds from both the government and the temple trust. They argued that the construction of the temple was completed.
The petitioners asserted that their arrest and detention were unnecessary for the investigation as they were ready to cooperate fully. They requested the court to direct the SHO of Bhupalpally police station to release them on bail if arrested.
Telangana HC upholds conviction of engineer in corruption case
Justice K Surender of the Telangana High Court has upheld one-year rigorous imprisonment awarded to Soma Raghavender, an assistant engineer with the Roads and Buildings department in Aswaraopet mandal of Khammam district. Raghavender’s appeal, challenging his conviction for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was dismissed.
Raghavender allegedly demanded a bribe from a subcontractor who bagged a road construction project. The contractor reportedly completed the work but the department did not clear his bills.
According to the prosecution, when the contractor approached Raghavender on 20 July in 2003 to clear the bills, the latter allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 20,000. Raghavender’s counsel claimed that the amount he received was a loan, but the court was not convinced.
The prosecution successfully argued that there was pending work to be cleared and the Rs 20,000 payment was made by the complainant as a bribe during an operation carried out by the ACB to trap the engineer. The court found Raghavender’s defense unconvincing.
In light of these findings, the court upheld Raghavender’s conviction.