Telangana High Court
Y Akhilesh Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, on 26 March, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2279 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Despite service of notice, none appears for 3rd respondent.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.339 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S. Kothapalli, Karimnagar District.
Facts of the case:-
3. The petitioner herein is father of the accused. The offences alleged against the son of the petitioner herein are punishable under Sections 308, 351 (2), 351(1) and 351 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS') and Section 3(1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 ( for short, 'the SC&ST Act'). On the complaint dated 29.09.2024 lodged by 3rd respondent, the Police Kothapalli, registered a case in Cr.No.339 of 2024 initially for the offences under Sections 308, 351 (2), 351(1) and 351 (4) of BNSS. 2
KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer added Sections of law i.e. Sections 3(1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 ( for short, 'the SC&ST Act') by way of filing alteration memo dated 08.11.2024.
4. In the complaint dated 29.09.2024 of 3rd respondent, the allegations leveled are as follows:-
3rd respondent elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Choppadandı Assembly Constituency of Karimnagar district from Indian National Congress. Since then, he has been looking after welfare of the people. On 28.09.2024 between 15:04 hours to 15:21 hours, he received whatsapp voice calls from Mobile No. 447886696497 to his mobile No.93466-62310 in which the caller threatened him by blackmailing his personal issues, demanded for payment of Rs.20 lakhs and thereby defame his image by posting such messages/clippings in social media. He further threatened 3rd respondent to kill him if he denies to pay the said amount as demanded. Again he received similar calls on the same day at about 20:18 hours. 20:22 hours, but he did not attend the said calls due to fear. There is severe threat to his life with the unknown caller. On 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 29.09.2024 at 09:57 hours, 10:43 hours, again he received whatsapp calls from the same mobile number, but he did not attend. On that the caller posted a voice message by 10:45 hours, threatening him. Hence, he requested the police to take necessary action against the unknown caller and protect his life.
5. Sri S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend as follows:-
i. The contents of the complaint dated 29.09.2024 lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the son of the petitioner herein.
ii. In the complaint dated 29.09.2024, 3rd respondent did not mention the name of the son of the petitioner herein. iii. He did not mention his caste name.
iv. Even then, the Investigating Officer in the subject crime conducted investigation with regard to caste of 3rd respondent and the son of the petitioner and obtained caste certificates. v. With regard to the very same allegations, P.S. Cyberabad, registered a case in Cr.No.6605 of 2024 against the son of the petitioner herein for the offences under Section 351(1) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 ( for 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 short, 'the IT Act'). At the instance of the Investigating Officers in both the crimes, Look Out Circulars (LOC) were issued. vi. The son of the petitioner was in United Kingdom for the purpose of his employment.
vii. He came to India on 09.02.2025 to attend his mother's-in-law funeral.
viii. Cyberabad Police arrested him at Bangalore Airport on 09.02.2024.
ix. The accused was produced before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kukatpally on 10.02.2024 in Cr.No.6605 of 2024. x. Learned Magistrate returned the remand on the ground of non-
compliance of Section 35 of BNSS.
xi. Learned Magistrate has also issued memo to the Investigating Officer.
xii. Thereafter, Police Cyberabad released the accused, on that, immediately, the Police, Kothapalli arrested him on 10.02.2024 in the subject crime dated 19.02.2024.
xiii. The Police, Kothapalli, produced the son of the petitioner herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Karimnagar, who in turn sent him to judicial custody. 5
KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 xiv. The punishment prescribed for the aforesaid offences is seven (7) years and below seven (7) years.
xv. Therefore, the Investigating Officer shall comply with the procedure laid down under Section 35 of BNSS. xvi. In the present case, the Investigating Officer failed to follow the said procedure. Without considering the same, the learned Magistrate sent son of the petitioner to judicial custody. xvii. He is in judicial custody from 10.02.2025 onwards. Thus, there is violation of the procedure laid down under Section 35 of BNSS and therefore, both the Police and learned Magistrate are liable for disciplinary action as held by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar1, Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation2 and order dated 06.08.2024 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 1 2014 (8) SCC 273 2 (2022) LiveLaw SC 577 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025
6. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor would contend as follows:-
i. The present petition filed by father of the accused under Section 528 of BNSS is not maintainable and he has no locus to file the present petition in the absence of authorization or General Power of Attorney.
ii. There is no violation of the procedure laid down under Section 35 of BNSS and principle laid down by this Court in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
iii. There are serious allegations against son of the petitioner herein.
iv. He made phone call to the 3rd respondent, sitting MLA and started blackmailing him by demanding money. He has threatened 3rd respondent to kill.
v. The Investigating Officer has power to investigate into all the aspects including the caste of 3rd respondent. vi. 3rd respondent is sitting MLA from Choppidandi Constituency which is reserved for Scheduled Caste.
vii. The Investigating Officer in the subject crime specifically mentioned reasons for arrest of the son of the petitioner herein. 7
KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 viii. Instead of filing an application seeking bail, the father of the accused, filed the present petition to quash the proceedings.
ix. Investigation is pending. x. Scuttling the investigation at threshold is impermissible.
With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present petition.
7. As discussed supra, despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
8. In the light of the said submission, more particularly, with regard to the submission of learned Public Prosecutor that the present petition filed by father of the accused is not maintainable, it is relevant to note that the present petition is filed by the father of the accused i.e. Sri Yasa Anantha Reddy. Yasa Akhilesh Reddy is the accused in Cr.No.339 of 2024.
9. Perusal of the record would reveal that initially the present criminal petition was filed by Y.Anantha Reddy, father of the accused and thereafter, in the first page of the cause title, the name of the accused i.e. Y.Akhilesh Reddy, s/o Y.Anantha Reddy, is mentioned with pen. Thus, there is correction. Vakalath is signed by father of the accused i.e. petitioner herein. Even contents of the entire criminal 8 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 petition would reveal that it is filed by father of the accused i.e. Y. Anantha Reddy.
10. Registry of this Court raised the following objection:-
"Please clarify as to how the above SR has been filed seeking the relief of quash wherein the accused is in jail. "
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner re-presented the bundle with the following explanation:-
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aranab Goswami's case had observed that when the remand of an accused is absolutely illegal and contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) case. The Hon'ble High Court can grant interim bail in a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same principle was followed by our High Court while granting interim bail to Allu Arjun's case Crl.P.No.15270 of 2024. Even in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) also the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the learned Magistrate invariably should issue Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice equivalent to Section 35 of BNSS instead of sending the accused to jail. Thereafter, the Registry numbered the present criminal petition and listed it for hearing.
12. As discussed supra, the accused is in judicial custody from 10.02.2025. Admittedly, the accused did not move any application seeking bail in the said crime before the Court concerned. 9
KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025
13. In the counter filed by 2nd respondent, except stating that the present petition is filed by father of the accused on behalf of his son, he did not even contend that the present petition is not maintainable. However, it is a legal ground and it can be raised at any time, atany stage, without pleading.
14. There is specific contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Police did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 of BNSS while remanding the son of the petitioner. Learned Magistrate without satisfying himself with regard to the same, remanded the accused to judicial custody on 10.02.2025 and he is in judicial custody since 10.02.2025. Admittedly, the accused did not move any application seeking bail in the Court concerned.
15. In the light of the same, this Court cannot dismiss the present application on the ground of locus. Admittedly, father of the accused is before this Court.
16. As discussed supra, on the complaint dated 29.09.2024 lodged by 3rd respondent, Police Kothapalli has registered a case in Cr.No.339 of 2024 against unknown accused with mobile No.447886696497 for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 351 (2), 351(1) and 351 (4) of BNS. The name of accused is not there 10 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 in the complaint. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 3rd respondent did not mention the name of the accused in the complaint and caste of the 3rd respondent in the said complaint dated 29.09.2024. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has filed alteration memo dated 08.11.2024 adding Section 3(1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the SC&ST Act'.
17. In the said alteration memo, there is no mention about obtaining call data to ascertain the fact that son of the petitioner made call to the 3rd respondent by using his mobile No.447886696497. There is no mention about the said aspects. Admittedly, the punishment for all the aforesaid offences is seven (7) years and below seven (7) years. Therefore, the Investigating Officers shall follow the procedure laid down under law, more particularly, the procedure laid down under Section 35 of BNSS.
18. It is also relevant to note that in the remand case diary dated 10.02.2025, the Investigating Officer mentioned the following reasons for the arrest of the accused :-
If accused is not arrested:
If the accused is not arrested, it will embolden criminals to target public representatives. The accused has already demonstrated a disregard for the law by directly 11 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 threatening to kill sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and attempting to extort a sum of 20 lakh by instilling fear of death and public humiliation. Given his other criminal records, if he remains free, he is likely to engage in further acts of extortion and intimidation against the complainant and other public figures. There is an imminent threat that he may tamper with crucial evidence, or use his networks to intimidate witnesses. The complainant, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, represents a marginalized section of society, and such an attack on his safety is a direct assault on governance. Failure to arrest and remand the accused will not only allow him to continue his criminal activities unchecked but will also send a dangerous message that public representatives and vulnerable communities can be threatened, extorted, and silenced without consequence.
19. He has further stated that in this case, notice under Section 35(1) BNSS was not invoked to the accused due to the following reasons:-
i. The accused has attempted to extort money by putting a sitting MLA under fear of death and defamation, thereby impeding the functioning of an elected representative. ii. The accused may further threaten the complainant and witnesses.
iii. The act of threatening and attempting to extort a representative of the SC community creates fear and 12 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 insecurity among marginalised sections of society, necessitating strict judicial action.
iv. There is a strong likelihood that the accused may again abscond if released on bail, thereby hampering the fair adjudication of justice.
v. The accused is involved in a similar criminal case pending in Cyberabad Commissionerate. There is a likelihood of the accused continuing such criminal acts.
vi. The accused may also tamper with electronic and financial evidence in the cases in any manner.
vii. The accused refused to take the notice.
viii. The case is under investigation for examining some more
witnesses.
ix. He would threat, inducement or promise to any person
acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing, such facts to the court or to the police officer.
x. He would not appear before the court as and when required/directed since the case is sessions trial. xi. He would not join the investigation of the case as and when required and will not cooperate in the investigation.
20. The Investigating Officer further stated that on 28.09.2024, when 3rd respondent was present in his house, between 15:04 hours to 15:21 hours, he received whatsapp voice calls from Mobile No. 447886696497 to his mobile No.93466-62310 in which the accused 13 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 threatened him by blackmailing his personal issues and demanded for payment of Rs.20 lakhs and thereby defame his image by posting such messages/clippings in social media. He further threatened 3rd respondent to kill him if he denies to pay the said amount as demanded. Again he received similar calls on the same day at about 20:18 hours. 20:22 hours, but he did not attend the said calls due to fear. There is severe threat to his life with the unknown caller. On 29.09.2024 at 09:57 hours, 10:43 hours, he received whatsapp calls from the same mobile number, but he could not attend the call.
21. Therefore, the accused posted the voice message at 10.45 hours containing threatening the complainant. Thus, according to the Investigating Officer, the accused committed the aforesaid offences.
In the remand report, it is also mentioned that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of 3rd respondent as L.W.1, L.Ws.2 and 3 are the circumstantial witnesses who corroborated the contents of FIR, L.Ws.4 and 5 are mediators to CDF, L.W.6 Tahsildar who issued caste certificate of L.W.1, L.W.7 is Tahsildar who issued caste certificate of accused, L.W.8 SHO who issued FIR, photographs, statement of witnesses by recording investigating Officer. 14
KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025
22. It is also relevant to note that the accused herein is also accused in Cr.No.6605 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S. Cyberabad. The said crime was registered against the son of the petitioner herein on the complaint lodged by B.Sandeep Raj, MLC and also politicians. The complainant in the subject crime i.e. Cr.No.339 of 2024, the complainant in Cr.No.6605 of 2024 are different and allegations are also different. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot contend that with regard to the same allegations, the Police cannot register second FIR.
23. As discussed supra, the complainants in both the crimes and the allegations are also different.
24. As discussed supra, the offences alleged against the son of the petitioner herein are 308, 351 (2), 351(1) and 351 (4) of BNS and Section 3(1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the SC&ST Act. Admittedly, the punishment for the offence aforesaid offences is seven (7) years and below seven (7) years. Therefore, the Investigating officer shall necessarily follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 of BNSS.
25. It is relevant to note that in the complaint dated 29.09.2025, 3rd respondent specifically alleged that he received call from the very 15 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 mobile number on 28.07.2024 at 20.18 hours and 20.22 hours. But he did not attend the said calls due to fear. On 29.09.2024, again he received wahtsapp call from the same mobile number at 09.57 and 10.43 hours. He did not attend the same. Therefore, accused posted a voice message containing threatening 3rd respondent. The investigating Officer has to conduct investigation with regard to the same and he has to obtain FSL report etc. Admittedly, investigation in the subject crime is pending.
26. It is relevant to note that Section 308 of BNS deals with extortion and the same is extracted below:-
(1) Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.
(2) Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(4) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (5) Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with 16 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(6) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit, an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(7) Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed or attempted to commit any offence punishable with death, or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, or of having attempted to induce any other person to commit such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
27. In the present case, as per the complaint dated 29.09.2024, the allegation against son of the petitioner is that he has demanded money from 3rd respondent over phone. Admittedly, as on 28.09.2024 and 29.09.2024, the dates on which son of the petitioner made phone call to the 3rd respondent, he was in United Kingdom. Therefore, if the allegation of 3rd respondent is true, at the most, the said offence will attract Section 308(1) of BNS. Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven (7) years, or with fine, or with both.
28. Section 308 (5) of BNS says that whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to 17 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 that person, or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten (10) years and shall also be liable to fine.
29. As discussed supra, in the present case, even as per the complaint of 3rd respondent, petitioner's son threatened 3rd respondent over phone. The said aspects were not considered by the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate while sending the petitioner's son to judicial remand.
30. The aforesaid reasons mentioned by the Investigating Officer seeking non-invoking Section of 35(1) of BNS are not satisfactory. The said reasons are only on apprehension.
31. Admittedly, the accused did not file any application seeking bail in the said crime. He is in jail from 10.02.2025. The only explanation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that there is no officer in the said Court and the in-charge Court is not receiving the bail application filed by the petitioner. However, he has not stated the said facts in the present criminal petition. In fact, the said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are factually incorrect. The accused has to file bail application in the concerned 18 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 Court, which will give SR number first, if the same is otherwise in order, it will number and dispose if off in accordance with law.
32. As discussed supra, prima facie, the allegations are against the son of the petitioner herein. Admittedly, 3rd respondent is a sitting MLA from Choppadandi Assembly Constituency. The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of the aforesaid witnesses. On the ground of non-compliance of Section 35 of the BNSS, the proceedings cannot be quashed. It is not a ground to quash the proceedings in the subject crime. At the same time, the Investigating Officer has to conduct investigation in the subject crime strictly in accordance with law. He has to conduct investigation with regard to voice message received from the accused mobile number to respondent No.3 mobile number. He has to consider the same.
33. It is relevant to note that in Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Apex Court considered the scope of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. (Section 35(1) of BNSS) and laid down certain directives and the same are extracted below:-
11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions: 19
KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;
11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.20
KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
34. In Satender Kumar Antil (supra), considering the said guidelines issued by it, in paragraph Nos.21 to 24, the Apex Court, held as follows:
21. Section 41 under Chapter V of the Code deals with the arrest of persons. Even for a cognizable offense, an arrest is not mandatory as can be seen from the mandate of this provision. If the officer is satisfied that a person has committed a cognizable offense.
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years, or which may extend to the said period, with or without fine, an arrest could only follow when he is satisfied that there is a reason to believe or suspect, that the said person has committed an offense, and there is a necessity for an arrest. Such necessity is drawn to prevent the committing of any further offense, for a proper investigation, and to prevent him/her from either disappearing or tampering with the eviderice. He/she can also be arrested to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person according to the facts, so as to dissuade him from disclosing said facts either to the court or to the police officer. One more ground on which an arrest may be necessary is when his/her presence is required after arrest for production before the Court and the same cannot be assured.
22. This provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty- 21
KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. Similarly, the police officer shall record reasons when he/she chooses not to arrest. There is no requirement of the aforesaid procedure when the offense alleged is more than seven years, among other reasons.
23. The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offense. Resultantly, while considering the application for enlargement on bail, courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due compliance of this provision. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to a grant of bail.
24. Section 41A deals with the procedure for appearance before the police officer who is required to issue a notice to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, and arrest is not required under Section 41(1). Section 41B deals with the procedure of arrest along with mandatory duty on the part of the officer. However, the Apex court reiterated the directives issued by it in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
35. It is relevant to note that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. In 22 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India3, the Apex Court held that such a procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.
36. In Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra 4 the Apex Court held that this Court can grant interim bail to the accused in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
37. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, more particularly, considering the fact that, prima facie, there are serious allegations against the son of the petitioner herein, this Court is not inclined to scuttle the investigation. However, the Investigating Officer has to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law.
38. Admittedly, the son of the petitioner herein is in judicial custody from 10.02.2025. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.339 of 2024 against the accused.
39. Considering the fact that the accused/son of the petitioner is in judicial custody from 10.02.2025, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
3
1978 (1) SCC 248 4 AIR 2021 SC 1 23 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025
i) The Superintendent, District Prison, Karimnagar, to release the son of the petitioner Sri Yasa Akhilesh Reddy, s/o Yasa Anantha Reddy, on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).
ii) He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer by furnishing information and documents as sought by him in concluding investigation;
iii) He shall not interfere either with investigation or influence the Investigating Officer in any manner;
v) He shall not involve in any criminal acts which will prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
vi) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
vii) He shall deposit his passport with the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Karimnagar.
viii) He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned.24
KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of 2025 Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date:26 .03.2025.
Note: Registrar (Vigilance), is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate action against I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, strictly in accordance with law.
The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District is directed to look into the matter, take appropriate action against the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.339/2024 pending on the file of P.S.Kothapalli, Karimnagar District, in accordance with law.
b/o. vvr