Telangana High Court

Mr. Sujoy Guha vs State Of Telangana on 6 February, 2024

Author: G. Radha Rani

Bench: G. Radha Rani

           THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                  CRIMINAL PETITION No.1126 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4

under Section 439(b) read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for

short, 'Cr.P.C.') to relax the conditions imposed by the IV Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge vide orders dated 30.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.2137

of 2023.

2. Heard Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the

respondent - State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a false

complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant against the petitioners-

accused Nos.1 to 4 without attracting the alleged offences. Pursuant to

registration of a case in Crime No.447 of 2023, the petitioners filed a petition

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.2137 of 2023 in Crime No.447

of 2023 before the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

seeking anticipatory bail. The learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 30.06.2023 by

imposing conditions. The Court directed the petitioners to deposit their Dr.GRR,J Crl.P.No.1126_2024

passports before it. Owing to the conditions imposed by the Court, the

petitioners deposited their passports. In fact, all the offences alleged were

punishable upto seven (07) years and Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. mandates a

notice to accused seeking explanation for the allegations against them, but a

petition was wrongly filed for anticipatory bail.

4. He further submitted that the entire dispute was a civil transaction and

all the petitioners were working and travelling for the sake of their employment

to various destinations. Further their family members were also studying and

were settled in abroad. The entire investigation was completed and all the

witnesses were examined. The only allegation made against the petitioners was

that the medical diagnostic equipment was not stored in cold storage and

therefore the said material was of no use. The relationship between the de-

facto complainant and the accused company was that of a customer and courier

of delivery of items.

5. He further submitted that the petitioners herein filed a petition vide

Crl.M.P.No.739 of 2023 seeking temporary release of their passports and that

an order was passed by this Court on 08.09.2023 releasing the passports of the

petitioners. The daughter of petitioner No.4 was studying in New York

University. The petitioner No.4 was intending to visit her daughter for her

University Graduation Convocation in the month of May, 2024 and prayed to Dr.GRR,J Crl.P.No.1126_2024

relax the conditions imposed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad vide order dated 30.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.2137 of 2023.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the IV

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide Crl.M.P.No.4127 of

2023 in Crl.M.P.No.2137 of 2023 gave liberty to the petitioners while

dismissing the petition filed by them for relaxing the conditions to seek interim

custody of their passports, to furnish proof of their requirement to go abroad, as

and when requirement arises during the pendency of the C.C.No.4469 of 2023

on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. But

without complying the same, the petitioners had approached this Court and

prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Perused the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioners-

accused which were under Sections 407, 420 and 427 of IPC. The complainant

lodged a complaint contending that they were involved in the business of

distribution of medical products for life saving use to various hospitals across

India and M/s. Critica Log India Private Limited was providing service to them

but the company picked up their medical life saving material from their office

for delivery to various branches, but not delivered the said product and was

holding the said products with an intention to cause wrongful loss to their

company and black mailing them for payment of outstanding dues which was Dr.GRR,J Crl.P.No.1126_2024

an illegal trade practice. As the material was out of cold chain for the past

three days i.e., for more than 72 hours, the material was of no use and got

spoilt. As such, they have sustained loss of more than Rs.18,50,000/-.

8. The learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners on 30.06.2023 imposed

conditions that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be released on their

furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each for a

like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority or learned III

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad within ten (10) days

from the date of the order and that the petitioners shall not leave the country

without prior permission of the learned Magistrate and they shall not threaten

the witnesses. The petitioners shall furnish their phone numbers, E-mail

addresses, aadhar cards/identity cards and also residential proof and shall

appear before the learned Magistrate Court for judicial process, if any. If the

petitioners fail to appear before the Magistrate Court for judicial process

without leave of the said Court and in the event of issuance of Non-Bailable

Warrants, the bail stands automatically cancelled and the self and surety bonds

would be forfeited. Further the petitioners shall deposit their passports before

the learned Magistrate.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.P.No.1126_2024

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the

condition of deposit of passports was onerous on the petitioners and relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I. 1,

judgments of this Court in M.T.R. Chowdary Vs. State of Telangana 2,

Konapur Mathada Nagaraj Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh 3, of the High

Court of Judicature at Bombay in Nijal Navin Shah Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Anr. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Nanda Vs.

C.B.I. (1 supra) held that:

15. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 Cr.P.C. states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding a 'passport' is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133).

This principle is expressed in the maxim 'Generalia specialibus non derogant'. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing.

Crl.P.No.12330 of 2018 dated 26.11.2018

Crl.P.No.6071 of 2020 dated 21.01.2021

Crl. Application NO.1193 of 2022 dated 23.12.2022 Dr.GRR,J Crl.P.No.1126_2024

10. Basing on the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, all the

High Courts i.e., High Court of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Maharastra,

passed the above orders stating that the condition of surrender of passports was

not a good law and relaxed the same.

11. Considering the nature of the offence which was civil in nature and it

was not a case of any misappropriation of funds, but violation of a contract and

keeping the articles in custody as a lien towards the outstanding amounts due to

them, imposition of the condition of deposit of passports is onerous on the

petitioners and the said condition is not valid as per the judgment of the