Telangana High Court
Tummala Siva Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 12 March, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2650 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A2 and A3
under Section 439 r/w Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the
petitioners on bail in connection with Crime No.221 of 2022 of
EOW Team-VII, CCS Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC and
Section 5 of Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act, 1999 (for short "TSPDFE Act").
2. As the petition was filed both under Section 439 r/w Section
167(2) of Cr.P.C., this Court directed the learned counsel for the
petitioners to submit as to how the petition was maintainable under
both the aforesaid Sections.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he would
restrict the petition for grant of statutory bail under Section 167(2)
of Cr.P.C. and that he would withdraw Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
4. Permission is accorded.
2 Dr.GRR, J
5. As such, the petition is confined to consider whether the
petitioners are entitled for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of
Cr.P.C.
6. Heard Sri M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
representing the respondent-State.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners/A2 and A3 were arrested on 28.12.2023 in Crime
No.290 of 2023 of EOW Team-VII, CCS Police Station,
Hyderabad, and on P.T. warrant, they were remanded to judicial
custody on 31.01.2024 in the present crime. They were even taken
on police custody. The petitioners moved a statutory bail petition
under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.802 of 2024
before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, but
the same was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions
Judge and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni 1 and the judgment of the erstwhile
1992 AIR 1768
3 Dr.GRR, J
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Tupakula Apparao v. State of
Andhra Pradesh 2.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as the
statutory period of 60 days was not completed by the date of filing
the petition, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the bail petition
filed by the petitioners, as the statutory period was not completed,
the petitioners are not entitled for bail under Section 167(2) of
Cr.P.C.
9. Perused the record.
10. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
petitioners/A2 and A3 are arrested in Crime No.290 of 2023 on
28.12.2023 and they are produced on PT warrant on 31.01.2024 in
the present crime. The offences alleged against the petitioners are
under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 of
TSPDFE Act. All the aforesaid offences are not punishable with
death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of more
than ten years. As such, the petitioners/A2 and A3 are entitled for
statutory bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C., if the charge
2001 SCC Online AP 1575
4 Dr.GRR, J
sheet is not filed within a period of 60 days by the investigating
agency. Admittedly, the investigation is not completed and charge
sheet is not yet filed. However, the only point for consideration in
this case is whether 60 days period has to be calculated from the
date of arrest in Crime No.290 of 2023, i.e. on 28.12.2023 or from
31.01.2024 in the present crime.
11. In the decision relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in Anupam J. Kulkarni's case (1 supra), the question
that fell for consideration in the said case was whether a person
arrested and produced before the nearest Magistrate as required
under Section 167(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure could still be
remanded to police custody after the expiry of the initial period of
15 days and it was held that "the provisions of law lay down that
such detention can be allowed only in special circumstances and
that can be only by a remand granted by a magistrate for reasons
judicially scrutinised and for such limited purposes as the
necessities of the case may require. The scheme of Section 167 is
obvious and is intended to protect the accused from the methods
5 Dr.GRR, J
which may be adopted by some overzealous and unscrupulous
police officers."
12. The issue determined in the said case is entirely different
from the issue involved in the present case. As such, the said
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not relevant to decide the
present case.
13. In Tupakula Apparao's case (2 supra) relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the question that fell for
consideration was whether the petitioner therein was deemed to
have been in custody in other crimes, although there had been no
formal arrest in connection with those crimes.
14. In the present case, the petitioners are formally arrested on
31.01.2024. As such, the deemed arrest in other crimes need not
be considered and the said judgment is also not applicable to the
facts of the present case. As the formal arrest of the petitioners is
shown in the present crime on 31.01.2024, the statutory period of
60 days shall be calculated from the said date only. As the
statutory period of 60 days is not completed, the trial Court has
6 Dr.GRR, J
rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners. This Court
also does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial
Court in the said regard or to consider contrary.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J
Date: 12.03.2024
ssp
