Telangana High Court
Muvva Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4744 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent No.2/accused No.1 in Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2025 in Crime No.416 of 2022 on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner/de facto complainant, Crime No.416 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) against respondent No.2 and others. The accusation made against respondent No.2 is that respondent No.2 colluding with other accused misappropriated the fund of the petitioner and transferred more than Rs.60 to 70 lakhs belonging to the petitioner Companies, namely NSP International, Frumar Agri Foods Private Limited and Tejas Food Industries LLP, to the accounts of the other accused persons. Respondent No.2 was arrested on 13.03.2025 and thereafter he filed Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2025 for grant of regular 2 bail and the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, granted bail on 19.03.2025.
3. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant, Mr. S. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.1 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate without properly considering the gravity of the offence and without assigning reasons granted bail in favour of respondent No.2, especially there are specific allegations are levelled against him that he has committed grave offence and diverted the huge amount of the petitioner Companies to his relatives and friends accounts and he committed cheating and conspiracy and the ingredients of Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS are attracted against him. The punishment for the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS is life or 10 years imprisonment and the punishment for the offence Section 61(2) of the BNS is imprisonment for life. When the punishment for the 3 offences levelled against respondent No.2 is more than seven years, the learned Magistrate ought to have record the reasons while granting bail. The learned Magistrate without giving any reasons granted bail and the same is liable to be cancelled. He further submitted that as per Section 111 of the BNSS, even the sub-clause of Sections 3 and 4 of the said Section provides for punishment not less than five years and which may extend to imprisonment for life. Hence, considering the serious nature of the allegations contained in the complaint, the learned Magistrate ought to have cancel the bail application of respondent No.2. The learned Magistrate even without verifying the complaint, on the other hand, granted bail in favour of respondent No.2. When the investigation is pending, the learned Magistrate without verifying the record held that most of the investigation has been completed and further held that having considered the gravity of the offence instead of dismissed the bail granted bail in favour of respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has committed grave offence and at his instance only, huge amount of the petitioner companies were transferred to various accounts belonging to his relatives, friends and his custodial interrogation is very much required for conducting investigation. The learned Magistrate granted bail in 4 favour of respondent No.2 mechanically even without any reasons and the same are not sustainable under law. In these circumstances, the bail granted in favour of respondent No.2 is liable to be cancelled.
4.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
1. Deepak Yadav v State of U.P and Another 1;
2. Jai Prakash Singh v State of Bihar and Another 2;
3. Central Bureau Investigation v. Subramani Gopala krishnan 3.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.1 submitted that application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law, as respondent No.2 has not violated any condition and he has complied the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate in the bail order dated 19.03.2025 and he has been cooperating with the investigation agency and furnished entire information which they sought by and he never interfered with the investigation nor influence any witnesses. The Investigating Officer has not made any complaint or filed any counter or made any 1 2022 Live Law SC 562 2 (2012) 4 SCC 379 3 (2011) 5 SCC 296 5 allegations against respondent No.2 that he is interfering with the investigation and not cooperating with the investigation. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed application seeking relaxing of condition No.2 of the order 19.03.2025 and the said condition was also relaxed by the learned Magistrate and at no point of time, the Investigating Officer has not raised any objection. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner for seeking cancellation of the bail is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5.1. He further submitted that the petitioner has not filed any piece of evidence before the prosecution, when respondent No.2 was in judicial custody that he mis-appropriated the huge amount of the petitioner company including audit report. The petitioner has not filed any single audit report statement either before the prosecution or before this Court and only the petitioner relying upon the Xerox copy of the bank statement and the same cannot be taken into consideration. He further submitted that respondent No.1 prosecution has also not filed counter alleging that not made any allegations against respondent No.2 that he is interfering with the investigation or tampering with the witnesses or threatening the witnesses. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the petitioner has not violated any bail 6 conditions and the same cannot be cancelled and it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5.2 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
1. Dolat Ram and Ors v. State of Haryana 4;
2. Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra and another 5;
3. Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra 6; and
4. Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement 7.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that respondent No.2 has committed grave offence. When the investigation is pending, the learned Magistrate has granted bail in favour of respondent No.2/accused No.1 without assigned any reasons and the same is liable to be cancelled.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, Crime No.416 of 2025 was registered for the offences 4 (1995)1 SCC 349 5 AIR 1999 SC 3026 6 (1992)4 SCC 272 7 2024 Live Law Suit 734 7 under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and respondent No.2/accused No.1 was arrested on 10.03.2025 and he has filed bail application, namely Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2025 invoking the provision of Section 480 for grant of bail on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. Learned Magistrate after hearing the parties granted bail on 19.03.2025 with the following conditions:
1. The Petitioner/Accused No. 1 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/-, along with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of this court.
2. On his release, the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 shall appear before S.H.O, P.S. Gachibowli, on every Monday and Thursday in between 10 AM to 12 PM for a period of two months or till the filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier.
3. The Petitioner/Accused No. 1 is further directed not to threat or induce the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
8. Even according to the learned counsel for the parties, respondent No.2 has complied with the conditions imposed by the Court below. The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, filed the present criminal petition seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that the learned Magistrate without assigning any reasons 8 granted bail and the punishment for the offences levelled against respondent No.2 is more ten years. Respondent No.2/accused No.1 filed counter, wherein he specifically pleaded that he complied with the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting bail in Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025 and subsequently, he filed application seeking relaxation of the condition No.2 and the same was also allowed. He specifically averred in the counter-
affidavit that he is not interfering with the investigation or influencing the witnesses and he is cooperating with the investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also not placed any evidence nor Investigating Officer filed any reply to the counter of respondent No.2 denying the averments made by respondent No.2 that he is not interfering in the course of investigation or tampering with the evidence or threatening the witnesses. It is also relevant to place on record that the Investigating Officer has not filed any application seeking cancellation of the bail that respondent No.2 is not cooperating with the investigation and not furnishing the information/evidence which they sought and his custodial interrogation is required.
9. In Dolat Ram supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically stated that once the bail is granted, it cannot be cancelled 9 mechanically without there being any supervening circumstances. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subhendu Mishra supra held that the cancellation of the bail is only copy of the order if there is interference or to interfere with the due course of administrative justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice of abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner along with other. Similarly, in Aslam Babulal Desai supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the bail can be only cancelled if the accused misused his liberty or interfering with the case of investigation and attempts to tamper with the evidence and threatens the witnesses or there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country and Similarly, in Prem Prakash supra, the hon'ble Supreme Court held that bail is Rule and Jail is an exception and while granting the bail in most serious offences, the said proposition and also by considering the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. In Jai Prakash Singh supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para No.18, reads as under:
"18. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the 10 reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been en roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty."
In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail in grievous offences may be granted only in exceptional circumstances, upon prima facie satisfaction of false implication and minimal risk of misusing the liberty, along with duly recording the reasons for granting such relief by the court.
11. In Deepak Yadav supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para No.31, reads as under:
"31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:
a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.
b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially 11 when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.
c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail.
d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.
e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified.
g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case."
In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the bail can be cancelled without new developments if the granting order is flawed. Key reasons include reliance on irrelevant or weak material, ignoring the accused's influence or criminal history, granting bail on unjustified or untenable grounds, serious errors in the bail order, or charges that are too serious to justify bail.
12. In Subramani Gopala krishnan supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Para 23, reads as under:
12
"23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."
In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the criteria for the cancellation of bail differ from those for an appeal against the granting of bail. Cancellation of bail requires "cogent and overwhelming" circumstances. These may include interference with the administration of justice, attempts to evade justice, or abuse of the bail conditions. Additionally, the possibility 13 of the accused absconding can justify the cancellation of bail. However, bail should not be cancelled mechanically or arbitrarily; rather, the court must assess whether supervening circumstances have rendered the continuation of bail detrimental to a fair trial.
13. The judgments which are relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not raised any ground that respondent No.2/accused No.1 is not cooperating with the investigation and he is interfering or influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence and his custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of investigation.
14. It is relevant to mention that in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Poosu 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the object of Section 390 of the Cr.P.C is, if ultimately the order of acquittal is converted into the order of conviction, the accused must be available for undergoing sentence. The second object of Section 390 is that when an appeal against acquittal is finally heard, the accused presence at the hearing can be secured. Therefore, there is a power vested in the High Court to arrest an acquitted accused and bring him before it or the Trial Court. The object is that the 8 (1976) 3 SCC 1 14 accused remains under the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with the appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of an accused. Therefore, as a normal rule, where an order under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. is passed, the accused must be admitted to bail rather than committing him to prison. It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. This rule must be applied while exercising power under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C., as the position of the acquitted accused is on a higher pedestal than an accused facing trial. When an accused faces trial, he is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. In the case of an acquitted accused, as stated earlier, the presumption of innocence is further strengthened because of the order of acquittal. Only in extreme and rare cases by way of exception can an order committing an acquitted accused to prison be passed under Section 390.
15. It is already stated supra that there are no specific allegations against respondent No.2/accused No.1 by the Investigating Officer that he is interfering with the investigation, influencing the witnesses, attempting to tamper the evidence and threatening the witnesses and his custodial interrogation is required for further 15 investigation. In the absence of any such ground, this Court is not inclined to cancel the bail, which was granted in favour of respondent No.2. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 30.04.2025 mar