Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Boodati Laxminarayana on 31 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.648 OF 2023
Between:
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad ... Petitioner/Complainant
And
Boodati Laxminarayana ... Respondent/ Accused No. 2
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 31.01.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
___________________
K. SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 648 of 2023
% Dated 31.01.2023
# The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad ... Appellant/Complainant
And
$ Boodati Laxminarayana ... Respondent/ Accused No.
2
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Sudershan, Addl. Public
Prosecutor
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri. P. Roy Reddy
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
AIR 1992 SC 1768
2
(2016) 1 GLR 139
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.648 OF 2023
ORDER:
1. The State is aggrieved by the refusal by the Learned
Metropolitan Sessions Judge to grant police custody of the
respondent for a period of seven days vide order in
Crl.M.P.No.107 of 2023 in Crime No.258/2022 of Police
Station, CCS, Hyderabad dated 18.01.2023.
2. According to the police, the case is investigated by
Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCS, Hyderabad and the
respondent/A2 is co-conspirator. He along with other accused,
collected huge deposits from customers in the guise of
registering commercial space in the proposed commercial
complex namely Sahiti Mahita Centro, Road No.12, Banjara
Hills, Hyderabad by executing agreement of sale in favour of
several persons including the complainant. However, suitable
permissions from the relevant departments were not taken.
On complaint made by the victims it was found that Sahiti
Infratec Venture India Private Limited collected amount of
Rs.40,92,20,687/- and the said complaint was registered and
being investigated for the offences under Sections 406, 420,
120-B r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of TSPDFE Act.
3. The police filed for custody of the respondent/A2 on the
ground that police had to find out regarding i) the amounts
collected from the victims; ii) number of victims; iii)
involvement of accused in the alleged misappropriation
regarding other transactions pertaining to the case.
4. Learned Sessions Judge found that apart from this case,
the respondent was given police custody in the crime
registered by PS Bachupalli, PS Petbasheerabad and PS
Madhapur. Further, the learned Sessions Judge had also
granted police custody of the respondent in Crime No.158 of
2022.
5. Learned Sessions Judge relying on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI v. Anupam J.Kulkarni
reported in AIR 1992 SC 1768 held that detention in police
custody could not be granted except under special
circumstances and further after expiry of 15 days, there
cannot be any police detention though in a case where some
more offences either serious or otherwise in nature were made
out and come to light at a later stage.
6. Learned Sessions Judge also relied on the orders in
W.P.No.45620 of 2022, wherein this Court held that there
shall be joint investigation in the crimes registered which is
subject matter of Sahiti Infratech Ventures. Since police
custody was already granted four times, learned Sessions
Judge found that under the circumstances it will only amount
to harassing the respondent/A2, accordingly, dismissed the
prayer for grant of police custody.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would
submit that there are several crimes which were registered for
serious offence of cheating several persons. The wrongful gain
is running into crores and since the case is one of
circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that police custody is
given by the Court which would come in aid of investigation.
He further submits that though the remand was shown in the
present crime on 11.01.2023 by way of PT warrant, the period
of 15 days would end on 27.01.2023 as 26-01-2023 is a public
holiday. He further submits that Gujarat High Court in
Special Criminal Application No.7720 of 2022, vide judgment
dated 22.08.2022 in the case of Yogeshbhai Naginbhai Vora
v. State of Gujarat held that though the police custody was
granted after 15 days of arrest, the same cannot be said to be
illegal. Learned Judge upheld the order of the learned Sessions
Judge granting seven days custody beyond the initial period of
15 days. In the said judgment, learned Judge was relying on
the judgment of the same Court in Kantibhai Devsibhai Patel
v. State of Gujarat1 and observed that the law declared in the
said case that beyond 15 days police custody cannot be
granted, was not applicable to the facts on the case on hand
and accordingly permitted grant of police custody beyond 15
days. Basing on the Gujarat High Court Judgment in Criminal
Application No.7720 of 2022, police custody may be granted
by setting aside the order of the Learned Sessions Judge.
8. Section 167 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:
"167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in
twenty four hours:
(2016) 1 GLR 139
(1).....
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under
this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the
case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in
such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding
fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case
or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary,
he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having
such jurisdiction:
Provided that-
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused
person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period
of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing
so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused
person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence,
and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as
the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is
prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail
under this sub- section shall be deemed to be so released under the
provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;]
..................
........................
9. A reading of the provision makes it clear that police
custody of an arrested person can only be granted in the first
fifteen days after his arrest and thereafter only to judicial
custody. Under no circumstances the police custody can be
granted beyond the period of first fifteen days. There cannot be
a staggered arrangement to make up to a total of 15 days of
police custody as evident from the wordings in the provision
(167 (2)(a)). To illustrate, the Court cannot grant a total of 15
days police custody in installments beyond the first 15 days of
arrest.
10. The finding in Special Criminal Application No.7720 of
2022 of Gujarat High Court that Section 167 of Cr.P.C should
not obviate the rights of the Police Officer and such police
officer has right to investigate in accordance with his
discretion and granting police custody beyond first 15 days of
arrest is contrary to law. The statutory restriction under 167
CRPC cannot be circumvented by giving any reasons including
giving an opportunity to the Investigating Officer to investigate
the case. Such reasoning or interpretation which does not
confirm to the statutory requirements is wholly illegal.
Further, grant of police custody beyond first 15 days is
contrary to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of CBI v. Anupam J.Kulkarni, reported in AIR 1992 SC
1768.
11. In the present case, learned Sessions Judge found on
facts that the respondent/accused was being harassed by
taking into police custody in several crimes that were
registered, though the High Court has directed for joint
investigation in all the crimes. Both on facts and also on law,
since first 15 days have expired on 27.01.2023, this Court is
not inclined to grant police custody. Accordingly, direction for
grant of police custody of Respondent/Accused is refused.
12. Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto,
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:31.01.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.648 OF 2023
Date: 31.01.2023
kvs
