Muvva Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5201 Tel

Telangana High Court

Muvva Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

             CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4744 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 483(2) of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') seeking

cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent No.2/accused

No.1 in Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2025 in Crime No.416 of 2022 on the file

of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that basing on the

complaint lodged by the petitioner/de facto complainant, Crime

No.416 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections

318(4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 (BNS) against respondent No.2 and others. The accusation

made against respondent No.2 is that respondent No.2 colluding

with other accused misappropriated the fund of the petitioner and

transferred more than Rs.60 to 70 lakhs belonging to the petitioner

Companies, namely NSP International, Frumar Agri Foods Private

Limited and Tejas Food Industries LLP, to the accounts of the other

accused persons. Respondent No.2 was arrested on 13.03.2025

and thereafter he filed Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2025 for grant of regular

bail and the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Kukatpally, granted bail on 19.03.2025.

3. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mr. R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner/de facto complainant, Mr. S. Chalapathi Rao, learned

counsel representing Mr. Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for

respondent No.2/accused No.1 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1

State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

learned Magistrate without properly considering the gravity of the

offence and without assigning reasons granted bail in favour of

respondent No.2, especially there are specific allegations are

levelled against him that he has committed grave offence and

diverted the huge amount of the petitioner Companies to his

relatives and friends accounts and he committed cheating and

conspiracy and the ingredients of Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2)

and 61(2) of the BNS are attracted against him. The punishment

for the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS is life or 10 years

imprisonment and the punishment for the offence Section 61(2) of

the BNS is imprisonment for life. When the punishment for the

offences levelled against respondent No.2 is more than seven years,

the learned Magistrate ought to have record the reasons while

granting bail. The learned Magistrate without giving any reasons

granted bail and the same is liable to be cancelled. He further

submitted that as per Section 111 of the BNSS, even the sub-clause

of Sections 3 and 4 of the said Section provides for punishment not

less than five years and which may extend to imprisonment for life.

Hence, considering the serious nature of the allegations contained

in the complaint, the learned Magistrate ought to have cancel the

bail application of respondent No.2. The learned Magistrate even

without verifying the complaint, on the other hand, granted bail in

favour of respondent No.2. When the investigation is pending, the

learned Magistrate without verifying the record held that most of

the investigation has been completed and further held that having

considered the gravity of the offence instead of dismissed the bail

granted bail in favour of respondent No.2. He further submitted

that respondent No.2 has committed grave offence and at his

instance only, huge amount of the petitioner companies were

transferred to various accounts belonging to his relatives, friends

and his custodial interrogation is very much required for

conducting investigation. The learned Magistrate granted bail in

favour of respondent No.2 mechanically even without any reasons

and the same are not sustainable under law. In these

circumstances, the bail granted in favour of respondent No.2 is

liable to be cancelled.

4.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following

judgments:

1. Deepak Yadav v State of U.P and Another 1;

2. Jai Prakash Singh v State of Bihar and Another 2;

3. Central Bureau Investigation v. Subramani Gopala krishnan 3.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.1

submitted that application filed by the petitioner is not

maintainable under law, as respondent No.2 has not violated any

condition and he has complied the conditions imposed by the

learned Magistrate in the bail order dated 19.03.2025 and he has

been cooperating with the investigation agency and furnished entire

information which they sought by and he never interfered with the

investigation nor influence any witnesses. The Investigating Officer

has not made any complaint or filed any counter or made any

1 2022 Live Law SC 562 2 (2012) 4 SCC 379 3 (2011) 5 SCC 296

allegations against respondent No.2 that he is interfering with the

investigation and not cooperating with the investigation. He further

submitted that respondent No.2 filed application seeking relaxing of

condition No.2 of the order 19.03.2025 and the said condition was

also relaxed by the learned Magistrate and at no point of time, the

Investigating Officer has not raised any objection. Hence, the

application filed by the petitioner for seeking cancellation of the bail

is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.1. He further submitted that the petitioner has not filed any

piece of evidence before the prosecution, when respondent No.2 was

in judicial custody that he mis-appropriated the huge amount of

the petitioner company including audit report. The petitioner has

not filed any single audit report statement either before the

prosecution or before this Court and only the petitioner relying

upon the Xerox copy of the bank statement and the same cannot be

taken into consideration. He further submitted that respondent

No.1 prosecution has also not filed counter alleging that not made

any allegations against respondent No.2 that he is interfering with

the investigation or tampering with the witnesses or threatening the

witnesses. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

He further submitted that the petitioner has not violated any bail

conditions and the same cannot be cancelled and it is violative of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5.2 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following

judgments:

1. Dolat Ram and Ors v. State of Haryana 4;

2. Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra and another 5;

3. Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra 6; and

4. Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement 7.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that

respondent No.2 has committed grave offence. When the

investigation is pending, the learned Magistrate has granted bail in

favour of respondent No.2/accused No.1 without assigned any

reasons and the same is liable to be cancelled.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and after perusal of the material available on

record, it reveals that basing on the complaint lodged by the

petitioner, Crime No.416 of 2025 was registered for the offences

4 (1995)1 SCC 349 5 AIR 1999 SC 3026 6 (1992)4 SCC 272

2024 Live Law Suit 734

under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and

respondent No.2/accused No.1 was arrested on 10.03.2025 and he

has filed bail application, namely Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2025 invoking

the provision of Section 480 for grant of bail on the file of the X

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. Learned

Magistrate after hearing the parties granted bail on 19.03.2025

with the following conditions:

1. The Petitioner/Accused No. 1 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/-, along with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of this court.

2. On his release, the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 shall appear before S.H.O, P.S. Gachibowli, on every Monday and Thursday in between 10 AM to 12 PM for a period of two months or till the filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier.

3. The Petitioner/Accused No. 1 is further directed not to threat or induce the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

8. Even according to the learned counsel for the parties,

respondent No.2 has complied with the conditions imposed by the

Court below. The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, filed

the present criminal petition seeking cancellation of bail on the

ground that the learned Magistrate without assigning any reasons

granted bail and the punishment for the offences levelled against

respondent No.2 is more ten years. Respondent No.2/accused No.1

filed counter, wherein he specifically pleaded that he complied with

the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting

bail in Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025 and subsequently,

he filed application seeking relaxation of the condition No.2 and the

same was also allowed. He specifically averred in the counter-

affidavit that he is not interfering with the investigation or

influencing the witnesses and he is cooperating with the

investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also not

placed any evidence nor Investigating Officer filed any reply to the

counter of respondent No.2 denying the averments made by

respondent No.2 that he is not interfering in the course of

investigation or tampering with the evidence or threatening the

witnesses. It is also relevant to place on record that the

Investigating Officer has not filed any application seeking

cancellation of the bail that respondent No.2 is not cooperating with

the investigation and not furnishing the information/evidence

which they sought and his custodial interrogation is required.

9. In Dolat Ram supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically

stated that once the bail is granted, it cannot be cancelled

mechanically without there being any supervening circumstances.

Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subhendu Mishra supra

held that the cancellation of the bail is only copy of the order if

there is interference or to interfere with the due course of

administrative justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course

of justice of abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any

manner along with other. Similarly, in Aslam Babulal Desai supra

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the bail can be only cancelled

if the accused misused his liberty or interfering with the case of

investigation and attempts to tamper with the evidence and

threatens the witnesses or there is likelihood of his fleeing to

another country and Similarly, in Prem Prakash supra, the hon'ble

Supreme Court held that bail is Rule and Jail is an exception and

while granting the bail in most serious offences, the said

proposition and also by considering the ambit of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

10. In Jai Prakash Singh supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Para No.18, reads as under:

"18. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the

reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been en roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty."

In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

anticipatory bail in grievous offences may be granted only in

exceptional circumstances, upon prima facie satisfaction of false

implication and minimal risk of misusing the liberty, along with

duly recording the reasons for granting such relief by the court.

11. In Deepak Yadav supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para

No.31, reads as under:

"31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:

a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.

b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially

when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.

c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail.

d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.

e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.

f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified.

g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case."

In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

the bail can be cancelled without new developments if the granting

order is flawed. Key reasons include reliance on irrelevant or weak

material, ignoring the accused's influence or criminal history,

granting bail on unjustified or untenable grounds, serious errors in

the bail order, or charges that are too serious to justify bail.

12. In Subramani Gopala krishnan supra, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held in Para 23, reads as under:

"23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."

In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

the criteria for the cancellation of bail differ from those for an

appeal against the granting of bail. Cancellation of bail requires

"cogent and overwhelming" circumstances. These may include

interference with the administration of justice, attempts to evade

justice, or abuse of the bail conditions. Additionally, the possibility

of the accused absconding can justify the cancellation of bail.

However, bail should not be cancelled mechanically or arbitrarily;

rather, the court must assess whether supervening circumstances

have rendered the continuation of bail detrimental to a fair trial.

13. The judgments which are relied upon by the learned Senior

Counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

case on hand on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not

raised any ground that respondent No.2/accused No.1 is not

cooperating with the investigation and he is interfering or

influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence and his

custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of investigation.

14. It is relevant to mention that in State of Uttar

Pradesh v. Poosu 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the object of

Section 390 of the Cr.P.C is, if ultimately the order of acquittal is

converted into the order of conviction, the accused must be

available for undergoing sentence. The second object of Section 390

is that when an appeal against acquittal is finally heard, the

accused presence at the hearing can be secured. Therefore, there is

a power vested in the High Court to arrest an acquitted accused

and bring him before it or the Trial Court. The object is that the

(1976) 3 SCC 1

accused remains under the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with

the appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that an order of

acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of an

accused. Therefore, as a normal rule, where an order under

Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. is passed, the accused must be admitted

to bail rather than committing him to prison. It is well-settled in

our jurisprudence that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.

This rule must be applied while exercising power under

Section 390 of the Cr.P.C., as the position of the acquitted accused

is on a higher pedestal than an accused facing trial. When an

accused faces trial, he is presumed to be innocent until he is

proven guilty. In the case of an acquitted accused, as stated earlier,

the presumption of innocence is further strengthened because of

the order of acquittal. Only in extreme and rare cases by way of

exception can an order committing an acquitted accused to prison

be passed under Section 390.

15. It is already stated supra that there are no specific allegations

against respondent No.2/accused No.1 by the Investigating Officer

that he is interfering with the investigation, influencing the

witnesses, attempting to tamper the evidence and threatening the

witnesses and his custodial interrogation is required for further

investigation. In the absence of any such ground, this Court is not

inclined to cancel the bail, which was granted in favour of

respondent No.2. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition is

liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 30.04.2025 mar