Gali, kin bail petition turned down in High Court

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, June 21 :  The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday refused to grant bail to Gali Janardhan Reddy, former Karnataka minister and his brother-in-law B.V. Srinivas Reddy in the illegal mining case of the Obulapuram Mining Company.

 

The duo are cooling their heels at the Chanchalguda Central Prison since September, 2011.  They were arrested by the CBI at Bellary in Karnataka in September, 2011 and brought to Hyderabad and the special CBI court remanded them to judicial custody. Janardhan Reddy and his brother-in-law moved the High Court after their bail applications were turned down by the CBI Court. 

 

Justice K.G. Shankar of the High Court heard the bail petitions and passed a common order by dismissing their bail plea. The judge pointed out that “bail applications are found to be devoid of merits and are dismissed”.

 

The CBI contended in court that the money involved in the mining case was a minimum of Rs 884 crore and that there was reasonable apprehension that the accused would tamper with evidence if they were released on bail. 

 

No appointments in panels irks HC

 

A Division Bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar of the AP High Court on Thursday expressed dismay at the attitude of the state government in not making appointments to various commissions and tribunals and pointed out that this would severely affect the dispute redressal mechanism.

 

The Bench was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the orders of the state commission for consumer redressal. The petitioners brought to the notice of the court that most of the orders passed was not headed by the chairman and a additional Bench cannot adjudicate the matter.

 

HC seeks threat perception

 

Justice Noushad Ali on Thursday granted a week’s time to the police to respond to a plea by former minister P. Ramachandra Reddy challenging the withdrawal of his security. He told the court that the government withdrew his gunmen without notice. The judge directed the authorities to examine the threat perception and to inform the court next week.

 

In the meanwhile, the judge directed to continue his security subject to the petitioner paying the cost.