- Airtel Postpaid Plans Bring Free International Roaming From Rs 499
- 'Politics means nation building to him': Rajnath Singh on PM Modi's 25 years in public service
- 'Rising Together': India sets out vision for 2036 Olympic and Paralympic Games ambition
- Teja Sajja’s The Traitors Telugu: Check Out The Complete List Of Contestants
- Meta focuses Facebook on Reels and tests a video-centric experience in India
- Gujarat Man Allegedly Forced Into Sexual Acts, Made To Drink Woman’s Urine; 9 Arrested
- Congress Prez Kharge to Host Lunch for INDIA Bloc MPs
- CBI Raids Bhagwant Mann’s Camp Office: CM Accuses BJP Of Political Vendetta Ahead Of Punjab Polls
CM’s daughter Nymisha Reddy’s property row: HC directs police to issue notice to BRS social media convenor
In Short
The Telangana High Court directs Hyderabad police to issue a notice under BNSS to BRS social media convener Manne Krishank and follow Supreme Court guidelines over posts concerning CM Revanth Reddy's daughter.
Share :
Telangana High Court
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the Hyderabad police to issue notice to BRS social media convener Manne Krishank before taking further action against him in a case over alleged social media posts concerning Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy’s daughter, Nymisha Reddy, and her alleged ownership of properties and pharma companies. Justice Tangirala Madhavi Devi also directed the police to follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and issued directions on the investigation should proceed. The court passed the order while hearing a lunch motion petition filed by Krishank, who sought protection from arrest in the case.
The DCP (crimes), Hyderabad, was directed to issue Krishank a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023. The court directed Krishank to cooperate with the investigation.
The case arose from a complaint filed on October 5 by Mettu Sai Kumar, chairman, TPCC Fishermen Congress Committee. He alleged that Krishank had circulated false allegations on social media against Naimisha Reddy relating to her alleged properties and pharma business interests. The police subsequently registered FIR 668/2026 under Sections 353(2) and 352 of the BNSS.
Appearing for Krishank, counsel T V Ramana Rao argued that the FIR was registered without a preliminary inquiry. He told the court that plainclothes police personnel had allegedly been following Krishank and were stationed near his residence, creating apprehension of arrest.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari case, observing that a preliminary inquiry should precede registration of an FIR and that an FIR can be registered only when a cognisable offence is disclosed. Government Pleader (home) Mahesh Raje opposed the plea, submitting that the FIR had been registered only on October 5 and that the investigation was still at an early stage. He urged the court not to grant protection to Krishank.
