Hyderabad: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a government school teacher accused of misbehaving with a minor girl student and using abusive language at a school in Adilabad district. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Sri Gedam Namdev, a government teacher who sought anticipatory bail in a case registered by Indravelly Police Station. The complaint was lodged by the parent of a young girl student, who alleged that the petitioner used abusive language and inappropriately touched her daughter at school, causing her to return home in distress. Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations were false and that he was wrongfully implicated. It was argued that the petitioner served as a government teacher at the same school for the past seven years without any complaints and had no prior criminal record. It was also submitted that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by the court. The additional public prosecutor opposed the bail plea, arguing that the accusations involve serious misconduct with a minor, and that releasing the petitioner could potentially lead to interference with the investigation or influence on witnesses. Upon hearing both sides, the judge noted that the petitioner had no prior allegations during his years of service, and that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is up to seven years. Considering these factors, the judge granted conditional anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Plea against tiffin centre in Jiyaguda
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ plea filed by an advocate alleging illegal occupation of a public road by a roadside tiffin centre operating under the name Vaishnavi Tiffin Centre in Venkateshwarnagar, Jiyaguda. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by T. Rajitha, seeking a direction to municipal authorities to take immediate action on her complaint dated December 7, 2024. According to the petitioner, the tiffin centre, allegedly run by unofficial respondents, encroached upon the public road, creating traffic obstructions and public nuisance. The petitioner claimed that the business blocked road access, including for emergency vehicles, while customers discarded used plates, washed hands, and spat in front of her residence. The activity reportedly caused unbearable noise, emitted pungent fumes from boiling oil and grinding machines, and contributed to the spread of mosquitoes and rodents posing serious health risks. Despite repeated representations, including a formal complaint, the authorities failed to act. She argued that the inaction was arbitrary, violates constitutional rights, and contravenes the Telangana State Municipalities Act. After hearing the matter, the judge granted time to the respondents to get instructions.
Contempt plea dismissed with costs
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh and directed the State Bar Council to initiate action against an advocate. The judge made the order while dismissing the contempt case complaining that the doctor accused of contempt had conducted the two-finger test on a victim in spite of the law laid down to the contrary by the Supreme Court. It was the case of the petitioner that the alleged contemnor made certain averments in a counter affidavit filed in a writ petition which were misleading and false. He contended that a writ petition was filed challenging inaction of respondents in not considering the representation filed under Section 74 & 76 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 seeking to provide the copy of protocol and guidelines of competent authority and scientific basis, relevant parameters of Gynecology Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department followed by the respondents in issuing medical opinion. The judge without considering the merits of the case, disposed of the said writ plea directing the respondents to consider the representation. Present contempt plea was filed seeking to punish the doctor for alleged false statements made in counter affidavit filed in said writ petition. The judge expressed displeasure at the manner in which the petitioner was litigating and questioned his locus to file the contempt case. The judge dismissed the plea with exemplary costs.
