Telangana High Court
Kuthadi Srinivas Rao vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 21 April, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4646 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') by
the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.4, seeking
anticipatory bail in FIR No.RC0352025A0004 of ACB Hyderabad
Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC')
and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. Heard Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for CBI, appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 23.06. 2023,
a master excel list was distributed to Circle 12(1), Circle 1(1), Ward
1(1), Ward 4(1), and Ward 12(1), instructing the Assessing Officers
to issue notices to assessees/tax payers who requested significant
refunds in their Income Tax Returns (ITRs). Subsequently, the
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Hyderabad, promptly halted
this initiative, instructing the respective wards and circles to cease
the issuance of notices and delete the excel list. It is further case of
the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 and 2, who hold positions
as Senior Tax Assistants, have disregarded the aforementioned
order by Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Hyderabad and
illegally retained a copy of the Excel list with the intent to exploit
the sensitive information related to the assessee. Accused No. 1
summoned individuals from the master list to the office, while
accused No. 2 aided accused No.1 by providing the Permanent
Account Numbers (PAN) of the assessees in Ward 4(1), which is the
largest Ward, and transferred them to Ward 12(1) or Circle 12(1).
Subsequently, both the accused sent emails from their respective
branches' official accounts and instructed the assessees to submit
necessary documentation in support of their refund claims.
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 conspired with other Income Tax Officers,
i.e., accused Nos. 3 to 5 and one private individual, i.e., accused
No. 6, who is a Chartered Accountant, to channel bribes from the
assessees to the accounts of the accused Income Tax Officers
under the pretense of imposing substantial penalties. Accused Nos.
1 to 5 directly contacted the taxpayers/assessees on their mobile
phones and instructed them to respond to the emails regarding the
refund issue; failure to do so resulted in threats of significant
penalties. Under the guise of imposing penalties on refunds sought
by the assessees, they solicited bribes from them. The accused
cleverly used the term penalty to lead the assessees to believe that
they were making a payment to the Government rather than a
bribe. Subsequently, after agreeing on penalty payments with the
assessees, accused Nos. 1 to 5 provided the mobile number of
accused No. 6 to the taxpayers/assessees. Accused No. 6 would
attend the calls from them under the pretense of rectifying the ITRs
as instructed by the Income Tax Officers and collected bribe
payments from them. Therefore, the Anti-Corruption Bureau
(herein referred to as 'ACB') has initiated the present case against
the petitioner and the other accused for the above-mentioned
offences.
4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely
implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that major
allegations are levelled against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6, and they
are the prime accused, who are involved in the entire episode and
there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to
attract the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC and Sections 7 and 7A
of the Act. He further submitted that the petitioner came to know
that the complaint was registered based on an e-mail received from
one of the assessee through the E-filing portal, in which the
allegations are levelled only against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6.
Unfortunately, the petitioner was implicated in the present crime
based on the presumption related to the alleged offence.
4.2 He further submitted that the petitioner joined in service
in the year 1996 and he got an unblemished record of service, and
so far, not even a 'censure' was imposed against him nor any
complaint in nature by any of the assessee, and his work was
appreciated by his superiors. He further submitted that the
Investigating Officer had issued notice under Section 179 of BNSS
on 21.11.2024, and under the same, the petitioner appeared before
him and furnished the information. He further submitted that
pursuant to the notice dated 08.04.2025 issued under Section
35(3) of BNSS, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating
Officer on 16.04.2025 and furnished the information and the
Investigating Officer has seized his mobile phone and posted to
28.04.2025 for enquiry and the petitioner is ready and willing to
appear before the Investigating Officer and furnish the information,
which he seeks and also whenever his presence is required before
the Investigating Officer, he is ready and willing to appear and to
cooperate with the investigation.
4.3 He further submitted that the petitioner is heart patient
and undergone operation in the year 2007 and he is taking
treatment regularly in Apollo Hospital, Hyderguda and also he is
suffering with high blood pressure and Diabetics, due to which he
has to take eight tablets per day and apart from he also requires
regular assistance. If the petitioner is arrested, he will suffer
irreparable loss, and his health will be affected significantly. He
also submitted that the petitioner is governed by CCI regulations
and if he is arrested and kept behind bars for more than 48 hours,
he will be suspended as per Rule 10 of the CCI Rules. He further
submitted that all the prime accused were already released on bail
and the entire investigation is completed except filing of the charge
sheet. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the
investigation and will abide by the conditions, which are going to
be imposed by this Court.
5.1 Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner has
committed a grave offence under the provisions of Section 420 of
IPC and Sections 7 and 7A of the Act. The master excel list was
circulated by the Income Tax Department on 23.06.2023 to Circle
12(1), Circle 1(1), Ward 1(1), Ward 4(1) and Ward 12 (1) directing
the Assessing Officers to send notices to the assessees/tax prayers,
who claimed high refund in Income Tax Returns (ITRs). Thereafter,
the then Additional CIT Range-I, Hyderabad, has directed the
respective Wards and Circles to stop sending notices and delete the
Excel list from the official website. However, accused Nos. 1 and 2
defied the said orders and unauthorizedly retained the copy of the
said Excel list with an intention to misuse the sensitive information
pertaining to the said taxpayers.
5.2 He further submitted that accused No.1 called the
individuals from the master list to the office, whereas accused No.2
got the PAN numbers of the assesses in Ward No.4(1), the largest
Ward, transferred to Ward No.12(1) or Circle 12(1). Subsequently,
accused Nos. 1 and 2 drafted e-mails from the official e-mail
account of the respective branches and sent it to the assessees,
directing them to submit necessary documents in support of their
refund claimed. He also submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2
conspired with Income Tax Officers i.e., accused No.3,
petitioner/accused No.4 and accused No.5 and a private person
i.e., accused No.6, Chartered Accountant to route the bribe from
the said assessees to the accounts of accused Nos.3 to 6 under the
guise of levying hefty penalty.
5.3 He further submitted that the petitioner and other
accused threatened the assessees if not responded immediately. In
the guise of levying a penalty on refund claimed by the assessees,
the petitioner and other accused demanded bribes from them.
Accordingly, the assessees transferred the amounts with the
account of accused No.6, and in turn, accused No.6 has
transferred various amounts to the accounts of the petitioner's
son, namely K.Dheeraj Kumar, and his henchmen Chitram
Balaraju on various dates.
5.4 He further submitted that the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6
were arrested and they were released on bail was denied. According
to him, only accused No.1 was arrested. He also submitted that on
03.04.2025 Income Tax Officer had issued a notice under Section
35(3) of BNSS, directing the petitioner to appear before him on
08.04.2025. However, the petitioner did not appear before him.
Thereafter, another notice was issued directing the petitioner to
appear on 16.04.2025. Accordingly, he appeared. Later on
16.04.2025, another notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was
issued directing the petitioner to appear before him on 28.04.2025
and the investigation is under threshold.
5.5 He further submitted that the petitioner is a part of the
conspiracy and played a pivotal role in the commission of the
offence, and the investigation is under progress. If the petitioner is
granted anticipatory bail, he will interfere with the investigation
and influence the witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment in Devinder Kumar
Bansal vs. The State of Punjab 1.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it is revealed that based on the complaint lodged by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police (ACB & CBI), Hyderabad, crime
No.RC035202580004 of 2025 was registered for the offence under
Section 420 of IPC and Sections 7 and 7A of the Act as amended in
2018 against the petitioner/accused No.4 and other accused. The
specific allegation against the petitioner and others is that on
23.06.2023 Income Tax Department circulated a master excel list
to Circle 12(1), Circle 1(1), Ward 1(1), Ward 4(1) and Ward 12(1)
directing Assessing Officers to send the notices to the assessees,
who are claiming high refund in ITRs. Later on, the Additional CIT,
Range-I, Hyderabad directed the respective Wards and Circles to
stop sending notices to the assessees and delete the Excel list from
1 MANU/SC/0309/2025
the website. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 have retained the copy
of the said Excel list with them intending to misuse the sensitive
information about the taxpayers. Accused No.1 called the
assessees from the list and accused No.2 obtained the PAN
numbers of the assessees in respect of Ward No.4(1) and
transferred to Ward No.12(1) and they have sent e-mails to the
assessees from the official e-mail accounts of the respective
branches directing them to submit necessary documents in
support of the refund claimed by them.
7. The complaint further reveals that accused Nos.1 and 2
conspired with other Income Tax Officers i.e., accused Nos.3 to 5
and one private person i.e. accused No.6, who is a Chartered
Accountant to route the bribe from the said assessees to the
accounts of the accused Income Tax Officers in the guise of levying
hefty penalty. Accused Nos. 1 to 5, who are the Income Tax
Officers, used to call the taxpayers/assessees directly to their
mobile phones and demanded they reply to the e-mail they received
regarding the refund issue. If they failed to do so, they were
threatened with hefty penalties. In the guise of levying a penalty
on refunds claimed by the assessees, they demanded bribes from
them.
8. The complaint further reveals that accused No.6 has
received the bribe money from the assessees into his bank
account, and in turn, accused No.6 transferred the amounts into
the account of the son of the petitioner, namely K.Dheeraj Kumar,
and his henchmen Chitram Balaraju on various dates.
9. The Investigating Officer filed counter, wherein it is
specifically stated that on 03.04.2025 the Investigating Officer has
issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS directing the petitioner
to appear in the Office of the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad on 08.04.2025,
however, the petitioner did not appear in the CBI office for
investigation. He further submitted that according to the notice
dated 08.04.2025 issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the
petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 16.04.2025
and furnished the information, and the Investigating Officer has
seized the mobile phone of the petitioner. According to the
averments made in the counter affidavit, the investigation is at the
initial stage, and accused No.1 alone has been arrested.
10. It is already stated supra, that there are specific
allegations levelled against the petitioner, who conspired along with
the other accused and demanded bribe from the assessees under
the guise of levying hefty penalty on refund claimed by them by
misusing the sensitive information in the master excel list, which
was circulated by the Income Tax Department on 23.06.2023.
Despite issuance of directions by the competent authority to delete
the master Excel list from the website and the petitioner has also
received the bribe amount into the accounts of his son and his
henchmen.
11. In Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reads as follows:
"21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a
serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied.
Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view
that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime
or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous.
So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said
that any exceptional circumstances have been made out
by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail
and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.
23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be
the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The
presumption of innocence is one of the considerations,
which the court should keep in mind while considering
the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to
balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public
justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty
can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.
24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure
corruption free society, then the courts should not
hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming
considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of
anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a
different thing to say that once the investigation is over
and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to
grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of
indulging in corruption."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above-mentioned judgment
has dismissed the anticipatory bail to the petitioner, on the ground
that the facts of the case did not demonstrate any exceptional
circumstances in a corruption case. Notably, the Court referred to
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, explaining
that even the attempt or solicitation of a bribe falls within the
ambit of the statutory prohibition. Similarly, the Court noted that
Section 13 of the P.C. Act punishes "criminal misconduct" by
habitual acceptance or solicitation of prohibited gratification. In
light of the seriousness of the allegations, the anticipatory bail is
typically unwarranted in corruption matters, unless it can be
demonstrated that the accusations are frivolous, politically
motivated, or manifestly false. The significance of this judgment is
to safeguard the integrity of public office, which remains
paramount.
13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of the case, the gravity of the offence, and also the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal
(supra), this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner, especially when the investigation is at the initial stage.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this petition stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
Date:21.04.2025
pgp
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4646 of 2025
Date: .04.2025
pgp
