Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court on Thursday granted anticipatory bail to Tollywood actor Nadamarti Raj Tarun in a cheating, forgery and criminal intimidation case filed against him by Lavanya Mannepally. According to the complaint, Lavanya and Raj Tarun were in a relationship that culminated in marriage in 2014. However, their marital life took a turn for the worse when the actor allegedly started neglecting her and engaged in extramarital affairs. She claimed to have been subjected to mental and emotional harassment. The complainant further alleged that Raj Tarun’s financial troubles had led to her family extending substantial financial support. She accused him of exploiting her emotionally and physically while making false promises about their marriage.
In response to her allegations, counsel for Raj Tarun argued that the case was a aimed at defaming and extorting money from the actor. The counsel also highlighted the complainant’s history of filing similar cases, citing a previous complaint filed against one Ravi Bavaji Masthan Rao. After hearing the arguments, Justice Juvvadi Sridevi granted anticipatory bail to Raj Tarun on a personal bond of Rs 20,000 and two sureties of the same amount.
Plea against dissolution of Bhoodan Board rejected
The Telangana High Court on Thursday upheld the decision of a single judge to dismiss writ petitions filed by the former chairman and a member of the Bhoodan Yagna Board against its dissolution.
A bench of Justices Alok Aradhe and J Sreenivas Rao was hearing the petitions filed by V Subhramanyam and another. The petitioners argued that the dissolution of the board was illegal as it violated the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965. They claimed that the government failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient grounds for the dissolution and not considering their explanation.
However, the state government countered these claims, stating that the dissolution was justified due to several irregularities committed by the board members, including illegal land allotments and forgery of documents. The government also told the court that the decision was taken after due process and consideration of the petitioners’ response to a show-cause notice. The bench, after a thorough examination of the case, agreed with the single judge’s assessment that the petitioners lacked the statutory or legal right to question the dissolution of the board or seek reinstatement as its members.