Disposed

Gottam Gopal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Apr 2025WP/10195/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police were insisting they bind over in three pending cases without notice under Section 126 BNSS. Government Pleader stated no proceedings or notices had been initiated against them. The Court directed authorities to follow due process of law under BNSS if any action is initiated, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to follow due process under BNSS in the event of initiating any action; writ petition disposed of, no costs.

Gottam Gopal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

Lj*xg: t,'

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

[^3166.1

¶5

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FME

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 10195 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gottam Gopal Reddy, S/o, Yadagiri Reddy Aged. 62 years, Occ. Agriculture, 2. Gottam Uttam Reddy-alias Uttam Kumai Reddy, Slb. Gottam Go.-pal Reddy, Aged. 32 years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶11

Both R/o. Nagapuri Village, Cherial Mandal, Siddipet District. presenflv at H.No.8-21l'1, Srinivasa Nagar, Quthbullapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶12

Gantupalli Narasimhulu, S/o.Venkatesham, Aged. 56 years, Occ. Aqriculture. R/o. Nagapuri Village, Cherial Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶13

...PET|T|ONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Hyderabad - 500004.

¶16

The Commissioner of Police, Siddipet District, Siddipet.

¶17

Mandal Executive Magistrqte - Tahsildar, Cherial Mindal, Siddipet District.

¶18

Circle lnspector of Police, Cherial, Siddipet District.

¶19

SHO/SI of Police, PS Komuravelli, Siddipet Diskict.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioners to bind over themselves as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Article 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequenily direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners life and Iiberty.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be cleased to grant interim directions directing the respondents No.3, 4 and s nr:t to insist the petitioners to bind over themselves pending disposal of the writ pe1 tion.

¶24

Counsel for the Pertitioners: SRI C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2,4 & 5: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

r-:

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VTNOD KUMAR

¶28

Writ Petition No, 10195 of 2025

¶29

OR,DER:

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2,4 and 5 and learned Government Pleader Revenue appearing for respondent No.3 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admisslon stage.

¶31

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the respondents-authorities are insisting the petitioners to bind over themselves in connection with three cases pending against them, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 126 of BNSS, thereby, interfering with their life and liberty, which action of the respondents-authorities, it is contended as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 would submit that the as oF date, no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners herein either by the 5th respondent or 3'd respondent herein by issuing a show cause notice.

¶33

¶34

Learnr:d Government^pleader would further submit that the respondents-a:thorities did not call the petitioners to the 5*, respondent police station and ask them to bind over in connection with three cases pendlng agair:;t them.

¶35

Learnerd Government preader arso submits that the petitioners apprehending that some action may be taken against them have approached :his Court by the present Writ petition alleging that the respondents-a Lrthorities without issuing any notic€, are asking the petitioners to bind over in the crimes registered against them.

¶36

The aforesaid submission made by the rearned Government preader for Home apprearing on behalf of the respondents-authorities, is taken on record.

¶37

In vier^, of the aforesaid submission, since, the rcspondents_ authorities by the instructions provided to the rearned Governm-"nt preader for Home ha'rer informed this court that as of date the rerspondentsauthorities ha're neither called the petitioners to the police sta tion asking them to bind over in the cases registered against them, nor issued any notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why they shor-rld not be called upon to execute a bond whereby they are bound over, tnis Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directe.J to follow - ,.l'

¶38

¶39

due process of law as contemplated under BNSS, in the event of the

¶40

respondents-authorities initiating any action against the petitioners herein.

¶41

Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ petition is

¶42

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, ilt any, pending in this writ petition shall

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

sD/- N.C HANDRA^SEKHAR D PUTY REGISTRAR

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

SECTION^OFFICER

¶48

to ',. an" Principal Secretary, Home Department' Secretariat Hyderabad' State of Telangana,^{- 500004}

¶49

The Commr..,on",^{oi Police, Siddipet District'-Siddioet'} 3 Mandal Executive^{r'/lldiii# IiJri"t-iri"' ctfgrial Mindal' Siddipet District'} i 6iiiE rili;;itoi^{ot poii"t,cherial, siddipet District'} ;. 5ii6;si;f^{F';]i;e-'Pd (omuravelli'siddipet District'}

¶50

O. One CC to^{SRI C.M R VELU' Advocateluruul} 7. Two ccs^{to GP Fod'ibjME:iii'g-tic"Jtt ior thd stateof relansana'at} . +ilr""383[^{t?ur[-REVENUE,Highcourt ror the stateor reransana, at}

¶51

Hvderabad. [OUTI 9. Ttfuo CD^CoPies

PSK. PSK

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710412025

ORDER

WP.No.10195 o12025

1 t1 ': €
3!
7-
L) [ / [i] ri 2[25
<br>A
..t:1.!

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

))

Gottam Gopal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gottam Gopal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandaveni Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana

D. Vijaya Vs The State of Telangana

Jaspreet Singh Sahni Vs The State of Telangana

Ambotu Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Likki Geethavani Vs The State of Telangana

L. Jaswanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana