Telangana High Court
Mohammed Raheel Aamir vs The Station House Officer/Sub ... on 29 April, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9379 OF 2024
ORDER :
(ORAL)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the
action of respondents No.1 and 2 in interfering with the life, liberty and
personal freedom or purporting to take coercive steps against him in
connection with the Crime No.137 of 2022 registered with Jubilee Hills
Police Station, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution.
2. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, and
perused the material available on record.
3. This Court passed the order dated 10.04.2024 directing respondents
No.1 and 2 not to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to give
an undertaking before the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court') within three (3)
days to secure his appearance as and when called upon by the
Investigating Officer (for short 'IO').
4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that pursuant to the order passed
by this Court, the petitioner has appeared before the trial Court and
furnished undertaking as directed by this Court.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that when order
dated 10.04.2024 was passed by this Court, he did not have proper
instructions to submit that there was already direction passed by the trial
Court under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. to conduct further investigation. It
was fairly stated that subsequent to the order dated 10.04.2024, an
application was moved by the IO on 15.042024 before the trial Court for
alteration of Section of law and for adding the petitioner as Accused.
6. Learned Senior Counsel seriously opposed the aforesaid statement
contending that there is no procedure under the provisions of Cr.P.C. to
file such application for alteration of Section of law and to add Accused
and that too when there was no progress in the investigation. That even
going by the statement made by the learned Government Pleader, if
permission was granted by the trial Court to proceed with further
investigation, the police so far have not conducted any investigation worth
mentioning. Thus, the action of the IO in trying to project before this
Court that the petitioner was arrayed as Accused is misleading and
improper. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the remedy, if
any, to the IO was to file application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add
Accused in the course of trial as charge sheet was filed in the subject
crime and case is pending trial in C.C. No.3592 of 2022.
7. However, learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that
the application was submitted by the IO for stay of trial in C.C. No.3592
of 2022 on the file of the trial Court. In the course of the investigation, it
came to light that the petitioner, who had political influence, colluded
with the then IO and though the petitioner was driving the vehicle, false
information was given to the Police by planting his friend and thereby
Mr. Afnan Ahmed was made Accused. Learned Government Pleader
further stated that this is a peculiar and serious case where the Police
Officers have colluded with the petitioner and his father who was then
MLA and somehow prevailed on the authorities to protect the petitioner
and see that he is not made Accused The petitioner was also an accused
in Crime No.886 of 2023 registered with Panjagutta Police Station for the
offence under Sections 308, 419, 279, 201, 203, 212, 213, 214, 217, 218,
225(A), 225(B) and 182 read with Section 109 IPC, Sections 184, 185,
187 and 188 read with Section 205 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and
Section 279 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984. Later, the petitioner tried to evade the process of law.
He ran away to Dubai and as it was difficult to secure his presence, LOC
was opened against him. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this
Court for suspension of the said LOC and the same was suspended for a
specific time. The petitioner was arrested in Crime No.886 of 2023 and
later enlarged on regular bail.
8. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the police have registered
two (2) cases against the petitioner as a vengeance and for political
reasons only to target the father of the petitioner who belonged to rival
political party. Even assuming that the petitioner was travelling in the car,
there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was driving the vehicle.
9. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hone'ble
Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 1
and submitted that arrest of the Accused is not always necessary during
the investigation and this is not a case where the Police cannot conduct
investigation without effecting arrest of the petitioner/Accused.
10. I have perused the material documents annexed along with the
vacate stay petition.
(2022) 1 SCC 676
11. Learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that as per the
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Mr. Mohd. Maaz Moheet Khan, at
the time of the accident, the petitioner drove the vehicle and himself and
Mr. Syed Afnan Ahmed were scared since the petitioner was the son of
MLA. The IO filed Crl. M.P. No.535 of 2024 in C.C. No.3592 of 2024
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court seeking permission for
conducting further investigation and the order dated 19.03.2024 was
passed permitting the IO to conduct further investigation. In the course of
the further investigation, it was found that the crime vehicle was driven by
the petitioner at the time of accident. Further, after verifying the call data
records (CDR) of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. the petitioner herein,
it was found that the petitioner was using mobile phone while driving the
vehicle at the time of the accident. Thus, prima facie case is made out
under Section 304 Part-II IPC and thus request was made to alter the
Section of law from 304-A IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC in Crime
No.137 of 2022.
12. It is submitted that he statement made by Mr. Syed Afnan Ahmed
S/o Syed Shakeel Ahmed and Mr. Mohd. Maaz Moheet Khan S/o Mohd
Abdul Moheet Khan were also recorded by the IO, who have stated that
the petitioner was driving the vehicle whereas both of them were seated in
the car. The vehicle took exit from Mindspace towards Durgamcheruvu
Cable Bridge and they were passing through Road No.45, Jubilee Hills
and at around 8 p.m. their speeding car was uncontrolled and it rammed
on to the divider near HDFC Bank. As a result, some balloon sellers who
were sitting on the divider got badly injured and one infant also died in
the accident. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner ran away
leaving the vehicle whereas, the accused persons tried to take the injured
lady in the vehicle to shift her to hospital but as the public gathered there,
they ran away and went to their friend's house by name Mr. Hussain, near
Pavilion Drive inn, Jubilee Hills on foot. It was further stated by them
that they received a phone call from the relatives of the petitioner asking
them to come to the petitioner's house, upon which they went to his
house. They noticed that there were ten (10) persons present in the house
and all of them insisted Mr. Syed Afnan Ahmed to surrender before the
Police Station by taking the case on him as the petitioner is the son of
MLA and his reputation will be tarnished. Further, the persons present
there were polite to them and said, they will take care of the matter and
will ensure that the criminal case will be closed in the Police Station itself
and there will be no case at all. On the same day in the night, Mr. Syed
Afnan Ahmed went to the Police Station and surrendered before the IO.
Thereafter, in the late night, he received a phone call from the Police
Station asking him to come to the Police Station. The Police questioned
him and after one (1) year, Mr. Syed Afnan Ahmed received Court
summons for his appearance and he came to know that F.I.R. was booked
against Mr. Syed Afnan Ahmed him and as there was no response from
the petitioner and his relatives. The petitioner and his relatives have
cheated Mr. Syed Afnan Ahmed and falsely implicated them in the
criminal case.
13. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth's case (supra) wherein it was held
as under:
"9. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High
Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial
view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section
170 CrPC that it does not impose an obligation on the officer-in-
charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the
charge-sheet. We have, in fact, come across cases where the
accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet
on the charge-sheet being filed non-bailable warrants have been
issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is
an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the
court. We are of the view that if the investigating officer does not
believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she
is not required to be produced in custody. The word "custody"
appearing in Section 170 CrPC does not contemplate either police
or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the
accused by the investigating officer before the court while filing
the charge-sheet."
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is nineteen (19)
years old and being harassed and targeted by the Police merely because
his father belongs to a rival political party.
14. Learned Government Pleader for Home relied on the judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in State through Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy and another 2 more particularly
paragraph Nos.51, 58, 62, 84 and 87 and submitted that the Police have
the power to arrest the Accused during further investigation having taken
permission of the trial Court under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. If any
orders are passed by this Court, it would hamper the Police investigation
and it would be difficult for the Police to lay their hands on the crucial
evidence which involves death of an infant and grievous injury to the
mother of the infant. Thus, in the interest of justice, it would be necessary
not to grant any blanket order preventing arrest.
15. According to learned Senior Counsel, there was no further
investigation worth mentioning and this case is concocted for political
2023 SCC Online SC 515
vengeance; the circumstances would clearly indicate that the respondents
are predetermined to get the petitioner arrested; in fact, the petitioner was
arrested in Crime No.886 of 2023 registered with Punjagutta Police
Station, for the offence under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, Section 279 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 and without following the procedure laid down
under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 3. Later, he was
released on regular bail. This writ petition was filed as there was an
apprehension for the petitioner that he would be again arrested in Crime
No.137 of 2022 which is clear from the surrounding circumstances that
the Police wanted to arrest the petitioner at any cost even when there was
no progress in the investigation. It is further submitted that even in the
Crime No.137 of 2022, prima facie, offence under Section 304 Part II IPC
is not attracted and alteration of offence from Section 304-A is per se
illegal.
16. Learned Senior Counsel stated the very fact that the Police filed
Memo for adding the petitioner as Accused in the course of further
(2014) 8 SCC 273
investigation is yet another circumstance to show that the Police are not
acting in accordance with law and exceeded their jurisdiction.
17. It is relevant to note that the statements of Mr. Syed Afnan Ahmed
and Mr. Mohd. Maaz Moheet Khan and Smt. Sarika Sunil Chouhan
(injured witness and the mother of the deceased infant) purportedly, under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., were recorded on 17.03.2024; later, the confession
statement of Mr. Mohd. Maaz Moheet Khan was recorded on 10.04.2024.
Whereas charge sheet in Crime No.137 of 2022 was filed in the year 2022
vide C.C. No.3952 of 2022.
18. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to continue
the order not to arrest the petitioner for an indefinite period in the light of
peculiar circumstances and new turn of events as discussed above and
alleged collusion between the petitioner and the then IO. However, taking
into consideration the delay of about two (2) years in filing the application
for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and the Police filing
a memo for adding the petitioner as Accused and for alteration of Section
of law after order dated 10.04.2024 has been passed by this Court, this
Court is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, the order dated
10.04.2024 passed by this Court should be continued for a period of two
(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so as to enable
the petitioner to take appropriate steps to file anticipatory bail/bail
petition.
19. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this writ petition stand closed.
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
Date. 29.04.2024
NOTE: Issue C.C. today
(BO) RRK
