- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Directs Telangana High Court To Decide Former TV9 CEO Ravi Prakash’s Anticipatory Bail Plea
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has directed the Telangana High Court to decide the merit of former TV9 CEO V Ravi Prakash’s anticipatory bail plea.The case was sent back to the Telangana High Court by the Supreme Court, directing it to decide the plea on its merit.The Supreme Court has also directed Prakash to present himself to the Telangana state police. It has instructed the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has directed the Telangana High Court to decide the merit of former TV9 CEO V Ravi Prakash’s anticipatory bail plea.
The case was sent back to the Telangana High Court by the Supreme Court, directing it to decide the plea on its merit.
The Supreme Court has also directed Prakash to present himself to the Telangana state police. It has instructed the Telangana state to give him a notice of 48 hours, in case the police wished to arrest him, so that he can exercise his option of seeking anticipatory bail.
Prakash had moved the Supreme Court seeking relief after the Telangana High Court dismissed his anticipatory bail plea on May 22 and the Telangana state police was directed to proceed as per Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Earlier, the Hyderabad Police had booked him for alleged cheating and forgery based on a complaint by Alanda Media, which is the new management of the TV9 media group.
Alanda Media had alleged that Prakash was trying to disturb the new management structure of the TV9 media group through discreet methods, attempting it from taking control of the TV9 media group, while Prakash had contended that he still continues to hold a 10% stake in the TV9 media group.
In this connection, it may be noted that previously, an actor Sivaji had moved the NCLT at Hyderabad objecting to the change of management of the TV9 group, but his petition was dismissed.
Citing the pretext that this plea was still pending before the NCLT, Prakash had remained absent for police questioning.