Telangana High Court

National Investigation Agency vs Menchu Sandeep A3 on 25 March, 2022

Bench: Shameem Akther, K.Lakshman

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                           AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

       CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.388, 389 & 390 of 2021


COMMON JUDGMENT:        (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)



      Since the facts of the case and the issue involved in these

three appeals are one and the same, these three appeals are taken

up together and being disposed of by this common judgment.


2.    Criminal Appeal Nos.388, 389 and 390 of 2021 are filed by

the National Investigation Agency, under Section 21 of the

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, 'NIA Act'),

challenging the orders of the even date, dated 04.09.2021, passed

in Crl.M.P.Nos.547/2020, 549/2020 and 537/2020 respectively, by

the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special

Court for National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad (for short,

'Special Court').


3.    Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Special Public

Prosecutor for National Investigation Agency for the appellants, Sri

V.Raghunath, learned counsel for sole respondent in Crl.A.No.388

of 2021, Sri V.Pattabhi, learned senior counsel appearing for sole

respondent in Crl.A.No.389 of 2021, Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, 2 Dr.SA,J & KL, J Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020

learned counsel for sole respondent in Crl.A.No.390 of 2021 and

perused the record.

4. The respondent in Criminal Appeal No.388 of 2021 is A1,

respondent in Criminal Appeal No.389 of 2021 is A3 and the

respondent in Criminal Appeal No.390 of 2021 is A4 in RC

No.04/2019/NIA/HYD on the file of Police Station, National

Investigation Agency, Hyderabad, initially registered for the

offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC, Sections 8(1) and

8(2) of Telangana Public Security Act, 1992, (for short, 'TPS Act')

and Sections 18, 18B and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Act, 1967 (for short, 'UAP Act').

5. Vide orders, dated 15.09.2020, 28.09.2020 and 21.08.2020,

passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.547/2020, 549/2020 and 537/2020

respectively, the Special Court granted bail to the respondents/A1,

A3 and A4 on certain conditions. Challenging the same, the NIA

filed Criminal Appeal Nos.419, 457 and 468 of 2020 before this

Court. This Court, after hearing both the sides at length, was

pleased to set aside the orders under challenge and remitted the

matter to the Special Court for disposal of the said bail applications

afresh, strictly in accordance with law. The operative portion of

the said common judgment reads as follows:

3 Dr.SA,J & KL, J Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020

"Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are allowed by setting aside the orders under challenge. The matter is remitted to the Special Court with a direction to dispose of the bail applications of respondents in these appeals (A1, A3 and A4) afresh, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this common judgment. It is made clear that till the disposal of the bail petitions of A1, A3 and A4 afresh by the Special Court as directed above, A1, A3 and A4 shall not be arrested. It is further made clear that A1, A3 and A4 shall abide by the conditions imposed by the Special Court in the impugned bail orders, dated 15.09.2020, 28.09.2020 and 21.08.2020, passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.547/2020, 549/2020 and 537/2020 respectively, till the disposal of their bail applications afresh by the Special Court as directed supra."

6. After remitting the matter to the Special Court, the Special

Court issued notices to both the parties and after hearing both the

learned counsel on record, the Special Court, vide orders of the

even date, dated 04.09.2021, allowed the said bail applications

granting bail to A1, A3 and A4 on certain conditions. Challenging

the said bail orders, dated 04.09.2021, the National Investigation

Agency filed these appeals, seeking cancellation of bail granted to

A1, A3 and A4.

7. It is not in dispute that A2 in this case (Yapa Narayana @

Haribhushan), who was shown as absconding, passed away some

time back and the same has been reported in print and electronic

media. A1, A3 and A4 were remanded to judicial custody on

03.03.2020, 13.06.2020 and 18.06.2020 respectively. NIA initially

filed charge-sheet against all the accused on 28.08.2020 for the

offences as indicated therein.

4 Dr.SA,J & KL, J Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020

8. While so, on 02.11.2020, the office of the Court below had

put up an office notice before the Presiding Officer of the Special

Court, which reads as follows:

Dt.02.11.2020 The Additional Superintendent of Police, Chief Investigating Officer, National Investigation Agency, filed a charge sheet in RC No.04/2019 of PS, NIA, Hyderabad against accused No.1 to A4 for the offence under Sections 120B IPC, Sec. 8(1) and 8(2) of Public Security Act (TPS) Act and Sec. 18, 18B and Sec. 20 of the UA (P) Act 1967.

The list of documents filed by NIA are verified, particulars of witnesses in Annexure-A are verified, the case properties is deposited vide P.I. No. 03/2020 in Annexure - C. The offices charge sheeted against A1 to A4 are mentioned below for each accused.

A1 Maddileti @ Bandari Maddileti @ Manohar @ Sony U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of the UA (P) Act 1967. A1 released on bail.

A2 Yapa Narayana @ Haribhushan @ Jagan @ Alluri @ Lakma @ HB @ H, U/Sec.120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UA (P) Act 1967. A2 is ABSCONDING.

A3 Menchu Sandeep @ Praveen, U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UA (P) Act 1967. A3 released on bail.

A4 Nalamasa Krishna @ Rathnamala @ Ramsila @ Ram U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UA (P) Act 1967. A4 released on bail.

As per our record, the accused No.1, A3 and A4 are released on bail and A2 is Absconding. NBW may be issued against A2.

A2 died and A2 abated on 27.10.2020.

9. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer of the Special Court took

cognizance against A1, A3 and A4 for the offences under Section

120B IPC, Sections 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act 1967.

The cognizance order, dated 02.11.2020, reads as follows:

Spl. SC 04/2020 Case is taken on file against A1 to A4 for the offences U/s.120B of IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UA (P) Act.

Issue Ss to A1, A3 and A4 and NBWs against A2. Call on 23.11.2020.

5 Dr.SA,J & KL, J Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020

10. Thus, it is evident from the aforementioned cognizance order

that offences under Sections 8(1), 8(2) of TPS Act and Section 20

of the UAP Act were removed against A1, A3 and A4 and Sections

17, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act have been added against them, while

maintaining offence under Section 120B of IPC.

11. The circumstances are somewhat peculiar in this case. As

seen from the material placed on record, the bail applications of

A1, A3 and A4 were filed seeking bail for the offences under

Section 120B of IPC, Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of TPS Act and

Sections 18, 18B and 20 of the UAP Act for which, the

respondents/A1, A3 and A4 were remanded. By the time the

subject bail applications of A1, A3 and A4 came up for

consideration before the Special Court for the second time, some

offences were deleted and some offences were added against A1,

A3 and A4. However, the Special Court completely ignored the

said fact and proceeded to decide the bail applications of A1, A3

and A4 for the offences for which they were remanded i.e., Section

120B of IPC, Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of TPS Act and Sections 18,

18B and 20 of the UAP Act. None of the parties to the proceedings

brought the fact of additions and deletions of certain offences

alleged against the A1, A3 and A4 to the notice of the Special 6 Dr.SA,J & KL, J Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020

Court, before passing the orders, dated 04.09.2021. Here, it is apt

to state that while considering bail application(s) of the accused,

the Court shall decide whether the accused is entitled for bail for

all the offences alleged against him/her. Bail cannot be granted to

the accused taking into consideration some of the offences alleged

against him and omitting some of the offences, in the same crime.

When the same was pointed out by this Court, all the learned

counsel on record fairly conceded for remitting the matter to the

Special Court for deciding the bail applications of A1, A3 and A4 for

all the offences for which cognizance was taken against them.

Further, the aspect as to whether there is prima facie case against

A1, A3 and A4 for invoking Section 43D(5) of UAP Act is required

to be examined and determined in relation to all the offences for

which cognizance was taken against A1, A3 and A4, on filing of

Police Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. mandates filing application/s for bail for which, accusation

of offence was made. On the date of determination of the bail

applications for second time, the accusation against the

respondents/A1, A3 and A4 was/is under Section 120B IPC,

Sections 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act 1967. The bail

applications could have been heard and determined for those

offences, taking into consideration the directions/observations 7 Dr.SA,J & KL, J Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020

made by this Court vide common judgment, dated 20.07.2021,

passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.419, 457 and 468 of 2020.

12. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion

on the merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to pass the

following order:

"The orders of the even date, dated 04.09.2021, passed

by the Special Court in Crl.M.P.Nos.547/2020, 549/2020

and 537/2020 respectively, are set aside. Consequently,

Crl.M.P.Nos.547/2020, 549/2020 and 537/2020 stands

restored to its file. The respondents/A1, A3 and A4 are

at liberty to file a Memo before the Special Court seeking

inclusion of all the offences for which cognizance was

taken and accusation is made against respondents/A1,

A3 and A4, within one (1) week from today. On filing of

such a Memo, the Special Court shall take the same on

record and make it part of the bail applications of the

respondents/A1, A3 and A4 and dispose of the subject

bail petitions afresh, strictly in accordance with law,

within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this common judgment. Till the

subject bail applications of A1, A3 and A4 are decided

afresh by the Special Court as directed supra, the 8 Dr.SA,J & KL, J Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020

respondents/A1, A3 and A4 shall not be arrested. It is

further made clear that A1, A3 and A4 shall abide by the

conditions imposed by the Special Court in the impugned

bail orders, dated 04.09.2021, passed in

Crl.M.P.Nos.547/2020, 549/2020 and 537/2020

respectively, till the disposal of their bail applications

afresh by the Special Court as directed."