Pardha.Saradhi Yarlagadda vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5116 Tel

Telangana High Court

Pardha.Saradhi Yarlagadda vs The State Of Telangana on 28 April, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.4918 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the

petitioners/accused seeking anticipatory bail in Crime

No.08/RCO-CR-2/2025 of Anti Corruption Bureau, City Range

2, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 7(c), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 2018, Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections

406, 409 and 420 read with 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

2. The present case arises from an FIR registered by the Anti-

Corruption Bureau (ACB), Hyderabad, based on a complaint

dated 12.02.2022 submitted by four research scholars of

Osmania University. The complaint alleged that during a routine

inquiry into construction activities undertaken during the tenure

of Petitioner No.1, several irregularities came to light. The key

allegations pertaining to financial mismanagement and

procedural violations in the execution of works related to the

Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies (herein

referred as "RCUES"), a body funded and governed by the

Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, and

administratively supported by Osmania University.

2.1. It is alleged that petitioner No.1, during his tenure as

Director of RCUES, misused his official position by approving

fake quotations in collusion with petitioner No.3 to favour one

Mahesh Narayana for construction work valued at

Rs.18,82,105/-. The FIR also states that the works were

executed through a private consultant rather than through the

University's Building Division or other government engineering

bodies, resulting in a purported loss of Rs.78.34 Lakhs. Audit

reports are said to have raised objections to these transactions.

Additionally, allegations against petitioner No.2 states that he

embezzled funds while serving as Research Officer in a solid

waste management project by misappropriating RCUES

resources and diverting them to his private firm, viz., Skyline

Archon Private Limited, causing a loss of Rs.1.45 Crores. It is

also alleged that several assets, including laptops, were not

returned after the project concluded.

3. Heard Mr. V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel

representing Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners, and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent ACB.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners have not committed the offence and they were falsely

implicated in the present crime. The allegations made in the

complaint pertaining to the years 2015-2020, whereas the

complaint was lodged on 06.03.2025. The allegations made in

the complaint does not attract the ingredients of Sections 7(c),

13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

2018, Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the petitioners.

4.1. He further submitted that the FIR is entirely baseless,

politically motivated and filed with significant delay almost five

years. It is submitted that RCUES is an autonomous institution,

fully funded and governed by the Ministry of Urban

Development. As per the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

entered in the year 2013, all administrative and financial powers

vested with the Governing Council, chaired by the Vice

Chancellor of Osmania University. Petitioner No.1, as Director,

had limited authority restricted to routine functioning and was

not competent to approve tenders or take financial decisions

independently.

4.2. He further submitted that all the works, including the

construction of a new dining hall and renovation of RCUES

facilities, were duly approved by the Governing Council in its

13th and 14th meetings and executed following standard

procedures such as e-tendering. The total project cost is Rs.2.74

Crores, resulting in a saving of Rs.15.49 Lakhs, as confirmed by

audit reports, thereby contradicting the allegations of loss.

Additionally, all objections raised in audit reports during 2015-

2020 were duly closed and ratified by the Governing Council.

4.3. He submitted that that petitioner No.2 was a contractual

employee, with no authority to independently make financial

decisions or approve infrastructure procurement. All

requisitions from him were subject to approval by the Director

and the Governing Council. The allegation that he diverted

RCUES assets or manipulated employee salaries is unsupported

by any record and he had sent repeated requests to the

University to relieve him from duty and collect the assets were

ignored.

4.4. He further submitted that petitioner No.3 is only Sub-

ordinate Officer and there are no allegations against him. The

complainant filed the present complaint pertaining to the

allegations of the years 2015-2020 and not explained and not

stated any reason for the delay in lodging the complaint. The

complaint was lodged by the complainant with a political

vendetta from rivals within the University, at the instance of the

rival faculty members, particularly one Mr. Kumar Molugaram,

who was contesting for the Vice Chancellor post. The complaint

was facilitated through confidential internal documents leaked to

the complainant, who is not entitled to access such records.

Initially, no action was taken on the complaint due to its

frivolous nature, but the complainant later filed a writ petition to

compel the authorities to register the F.I.R., however, the said

writ petition remains pending with no directions. Therefore, the

FIR appears to be an afterthought one, instituted with malicious

intent, nearly six years after the retirement of petitioner No.1.

4.5. He further submitted that entire set of allegations are

vague, baseless, and contrary to official records and audit

reports. The delay in registration of the FIR, the lack of any

specific role attributed to petitioner No.3, and prima facie there is

no material against any of the petitioners.

4.6. He further submitted that the petitioners seek anticipatory

bail in respect of the allegations of corruption and financial

misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.

The allegations against petitioner No.1 including irregularities in

standard operating procedures and financial mismanagement

are contradicted by audit reports ratified by the Governing

Council, which show no pending objections. The petitioners

emphasize their willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

The petitioners do not have any other criminal antecedents and

their established reputations in the academic sector asserting

that they are not flight risks. Therefore, requested the Court to

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.7. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment

in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab 1. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para No.36, that:

"36. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the

1980 (2) SCC 565

object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the state" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, (MANU/SC/0139/1961) which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person

seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail."

5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

respondent that the petitioners have committed grave offence.

He further submitted that petitioner No.1 dishonestly and

fraudulently misappropriated the infrastructure of RCUES and

used the same for developing his private firm in the Skyline

Archon Private Limited, Hyderabad, and caused loss to an

amount of Rs.1,45,38,702/- to RCUES and there are specific

allegations against the petitioners that they have

misappropriated huge amount of the Government and the

investigation is at the threshold. The petitioners with criminal

conspiracy and with an fraudulent and dishonest intention

caused wrongful loss to the public exchequer to a tune of Rs.3

Crores and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

5.1. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 in collusion with

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have committed financial and procedural

irregularities during his tenure from 2016-2019 for construction

of dining hall, four suits rooms, development activities, repairs,

renovation of 19 hostel rooms and renovation of RCUES main

building. The Anti-Corruption Bureau's investigation revealed

that unauthorized construction and renovation projects,

including a dining hall and hostel repairs, resulting in a loss of

approximately Rs. 78.34 lakhs due to contracts awarded based

on fake quotations. The accusation made against petitioner No.2

is that he embezzling over Rs.1.45 Crores by inflating project

budgets and diverting resources to his private firm i.e., Skyline

Archon Private Limited, while petitioner No.3 allegedly colluded

in these activities. The F.I.R. was registered on 06.03.2025, cites

violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, including

criminal conspiracy and cheating, supported by audit

objections and documentation that highlight a lack of

transparency and accountability in the procurement process,

indicating that the petitioners misused their official positions for

personal gain. Basing on the said allegations, the crime was

registered for the aforesaid offences.

5.2. In State Rep. by The C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma 2, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of

2 1997 (2) ALD (Crl.) 747

the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted with caution,

especially in serious corruption cases involving high-ranking

officials. The custodial interrogation is essential for effective

investigations, as it allows for the extraction of crucial

information that may be concealed if a suspect is protected by

anticipatory bail. It noted that the criteria for granting

anticipatory bail differ from those for post-arrest bail, and

concerns about witness tampering are valid given the

respondent's influential position. The Court ultimately found

that the High Court misdirected itself in granting anticipatory

bail, leading to the reversal of that order.

5.3. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani

and Ors. 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Para Nos.31 and

33, which reads as follows:

"31. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an un measurable length;

(2023) 3 SCR 476

they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious.

33. The contention that prior approval of investigation, as mandated under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been obtained and thus, the proceedings initiated against Respondent No. 1 stand vitiated, has no legal or factual basis. Section 17A merely contemplates that police officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority. The first proviso to the section states that such approval is not necessary in cases involving arrest of the person on the spot on the charges of accepting undue advantage."

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and after perusal of the material available on

record, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the

petitioners that during the tenure of petitioner No.1, who worked

as a Professor in Public Administration Department and in-

charge Director/Senior Consultant of RCUES, committed several

irregularities from 2016-2019 in construction of dining hall, four

suits rooms, development activities, repairs, renovation of 19

hostel rooms and renovation of RCUES main building and

caused wrongful loss to the public exchequer to an amount of

Rs.3 Crores. The record further reveals that there is specific

allegation against the petitioners that as per the MoU between

the Government of India, New Delhi and Osmania University,

dated 31.05.1999, the RCUES has to follow the norms of the

Osmania University in execution of the works. However, the

petitioners along with other accused in furtherance of their

criminal conspiracy and with an fraudulent intention did not

utilized the services of Osmania University, R & B Department,

CPWD or any other Regular Engineering Department to ensure

proper technical check regarding quality control and features,

accountability and responsibility for any deficiencies.

7. The record further reveals that there is a specific allegation

against petitioner No.1 that he dishonestly and fraudulently mis-

appropriated infrastructure of RCUES - OU and used the same

for developing his private firm, namely, Skyline Archon Private

Limited and thereby caused loss to a tune of Rs.1,45,38,702/-.

Even according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the

investigation is still initial stage and records relating to the

constructions and projects are yet to be collected on examining

the witnesses, who are acquainted with the facts of the case, is

also pending.

8. It is already stated supra that there are specific allegations

levelled against petitioner No.1, who conspired with other

accused, and caused huge financial loss to the public exchequer

to a tune of more than Rs.3 Crores, especially financial and

procedural irregularities in construction of dining hall, four suits

rooms, development activities, repairs, renovation of 19 hostel

rooms and renovation of RCUES main building without following

the mandatory procedure prescribed under MoU dated

31.05.1999.

9. In Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab 4, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, held at paragraph Nos.21, 23 and 24,

which 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

2025 SCC OnLine SC 488

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."

10. 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.

11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

the case, 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

petitioners, especially when the investigation is at the initial

stage.

12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 28.04.2025 mar