Telangana High Court

Y Akhilesh Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, on 26 March, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.2279 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for

the State. Despite service of notice, none appears for 3rd respondent.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') to quash the

proceedings in Cr.No.339 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S.

Kothapalli, Karimnagar District.

Facts of the case:-

3. The petitioner herein is father of the accused. The offences

alleged against the son of the petitioner herein are punishable under

Sections 308, 351 (2), 351(1) and 351 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 (for short, 'BNS') and Section 3(1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015 ( for short, 'the SC&ST Act'). On the

complaint dated 29.09.2024 lodged by 3rd respondent, the Police

Kothapalli, registered a case in Cr.No.339 of 2024 initially for the

offences under Sections 308, 351 (2), 351(1) and 351 (4) of BNSS.

KL,J

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer added

Sections of law i.e. Sections 3(1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015 ( for short, 'the SC&ST Act') by way of filing

alteration memo dated 08.11.2024.

4. In the complaint dated 29.09.2024 of 3rd respondent, the

allegations leveled are as follows:-

3rd respondent elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly

(MLA) from Choppadandı Assembly Constituency of Karimnagar

district from Indian National Congress. Since then, he has been

looking after welfare of the people. On 28.09.2024 between 15:04

hours to 15:21 hours, he received whatsapp voice calls from Mobile

No. 447886696497 to his mobile No.93466-62310 in which the caller

threatened him by blackmailing his personal issues, demanded for

payment of Rs.20 lakhs and thereby defame his image by posting such

messages/clippings in social media. He further threatened 3rd

respondent to kill him if he denies to pay the said amount as

demanded. Again he received similar calls on the same day at about

20:18 hours. 20:22 hours, but he did not attend the said calls due to

fear. There is severe threat to his life with the unknown caller. On

KL,J

29.09.2024 at 09:57 hours, 10:43 hours, again he received whatsapp

calls from the same mobile number, but he did not attend. On that the

caller posted a voice message by 10:45 hours, threatening him. Hence,

he requested the police to take necessary action against the unknown

caller and protect his life.

5. Sri S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend as follows:-

i. The contents of the complaint dated 29.09.2024 lacks the

ingredients of the offences alleged against the son of the

petitioner herein.

ii. In the complaint dated 29.09.2024, 3rd respondent did not

mention the name of the son of the petitioner herein.

iii. He did not mention his caste name.

iv. Even then, the Investigating Officer in the subject crime

conducted investigation with regard to caste of 3rd respondent

and the son of the petitioner and obtained caste certificates.

v. With regard to the very same allegations, P.S. Cyberabad,

registered a case in Cr.No.6605 of 2024 against the son of the

petitioner herein for the offences under Section 351(1) of BNS

and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 ( for

KL,J

short, 'the IT Act'). At the instance of the Investigating Officers

in both the crimes, Look Out Circulars (LOC) were issued.

vi. The son of the petitioner was in United Kingdom for the

purpose of his employment.

vii. He came to India on 09.02.2025 to attend his mother's-in-law

funeral.

viii. Cyberabad Police arrested him at Bangalore Airport on

09.02.2024.

ix. The accused was produced before Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kukatpally on 10.02.2024 in Cr.No.6605 of 2024.

x. Learned Magistrate returned the remand on the ground of non-

compliance of Section 35 of BNSS.

xi. Learned Magistrate has also issued memo to the Investigating

Officer.

xii. Thereafter, Police Cyberabad released the accused, on that,

immediately, the Police, Kothapalli arrested him on 10.02.2024

in the subject crime dated 19.02.2024.

xiii. The Police, Kothapalli, produced the son of the petitioner herein

before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at

Karimnagar, who in turn sent him to judicial custody.

KL,J

xiv. The punishment prescribed for the aforesaid offences is seven

(7) years and below seven (7) years.

xv. Therefore, the Investigating Officer shall comply with the

procedure laid down under Section 35 of BNSS.

xvi. In the present case, the Investigating Officer failed to follow the

said procedure. Without considering the same, the learned

Magistrate sent son of the petitioner to judicial custody.

xvii. He is in judicial custody from 10.02.2025 onwards. Thus, there

is violation of the procedure laid down under Section 35 of

BNSS and therefore, both the Police and learned Magistrate are

liable for disciplinary action as held by the Apex Court in

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar1, Satender Kumar Antil

vs. Central Bureau of Investigation2 and order dated

06.08.2024 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to

quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

2014 (8) SCC 273

(2022) LiveLaw SC 577

KL,J

6. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor would contend as

follows:-

i. The present petition filed by father of the accused under Section

528 of BNSS is not maintainable and he has no locus to file the

present petition in the absence of authorization or General

Power of Attorney.

ii. There is no violation of the procedure laid down under Section

35 of BNSS and principle laid down by this Court in Arnesh

Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

iii. There are serious allegations against son of the petitioner

herein.

iv. He made phone call to the 3rd respondent, sitting MLA and

started blackmailing him by demanding money. He has

threatened 3rd respondent to kill.

v. The Investigating Officer has power to investigate into all the

aspects including the caste of 3rd respondent.

vi. 3rd respondent is sitting MLA from Choppidandi Constituency

which is reserved for Scheduled Caste.

vii. The Investigating Officer in the subject crime specifically

mentioned reasons for arrest of the son of the petitioner herein.

KL,J

viii. Instead of filing an application seeking bail, the father of the

accused, filed the present petition to quash the proceedings.

 ix.    Investigation is pending.

  x.    Scuttling the investigation at threshold is impermissible.

With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present

petition.

7. As discussed supra, despite service of notice, there is no

representation on behalf of the 3rd respondent.

8. In the light of the said submission, more particularly, with

regard to the submission of learned Public Prosecutor that the present

petition filed by father of the accused is not maintainable, it is relevant

to note that the present petition is filed by the father of the accused i.e.

Sri Yasa Anantha Reddy. Yasa Akhilesh Reddy is the accused in

Cr.No.339 of 2024.

9. Perusal of the record would reveal that initially the present

criminal petition was filed by Y.Anantha Reddy, father of the accused

and thereafter, in the first page of the cause title, the name of the

accused i.e. Y.Akhilesh Reddy, s/o Y.Anantha Reddy, is mentioned

with pen. Thus, there is correction. Vakalath is signed by father of the

accused i.e. petitioner herein. Even contents of the entire criminal

KL,J

petition would reveal that it is filed by father of the accused

i.e. Y. Anantha Reddy.

10. Registry of this Court raised the following objection:-

"Please clarify as to how the above SR has been filed seeking the relief of quash wherein the accused is in jail. "

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner re-presented the bundle

with the following explanation:-

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aranab Goswami's case had observed that when the remand of an accused is absolutely illegal and contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) case. The Hon'ble High Court can grant interim bail in a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same principle was followed by our High Court while granting interim bail to Allu Arjun's case Crl.P.No.15270 of 2024. Even in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) also the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the learned Magistrate invariably should issue Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice equivalent to Section 35 of BNSS instead of sending the accused to jail.

Thereafter, the Registry numbered the present criminal petition and

listed it for hearing.

12. As discussed supra, the accused is in judicial custody from

10.02.2025. Admittedly, the accused did not move any application

seeking bail in the said crime before the Court concerned.

KL,J

13. In the counter filed by 2nd respondent, except stating that the

present petition is filed by father of the accused on behalf of his son,

he did not even contend that the present petition is not maintainable.

However, it is a legal ground and it can be raised at any time, atany

stage, without pleading.

14. There is specific contention by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the Police did not follow the procedure laid down under

Section 35 of BNSS while remanding the son of the petitioner.

Learned Magistrate without satisfying himself with regard to the

same, remanded the accused to judicial custody on 10.02.2025 and he

is in judicial custody since 10.02.2025. Admittedly, the accused did

not move any application seeking bail in the Court concerned.

15. In the light of the same, this Court cannot dismiss the

present application on the ground of locus. Admittedly, father of the

accused is before this Court.

16. As discussed supra, on the complaint dated 29.09.2024

lodged by 3rd respondent, Police Kothapalli has registered a case in

Cr.No.339 of 2024 against unknown accused with mobile

No.447886696497 for the offences punishable under Sections 308,

351 (2), 351(1) and 351 (4) of BNS. The name of accused is not there

KL,J

in the complaint. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, 3rd respondent did not mention the name of the accused in

the complaint and caste of the 3rd respondent in the said complaint

dated 29.09.2024. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has filed

alteration memo dated 08.11.2024 adding Section 3(1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2)

(va) of the SC&ST Act'.

17. In the said alteration memo, there is no mention about

obtaining call data to ascertain the fact that son of the petitioner made

call to the 3rd respondent by using his mobile No.447886696497.

There is no mention about the said aspects. Admittedly, the

punishment for all the aforesaid offences is seven (7) years and below

seven (7) years. Therefore, the Investigating Officers shall follow the

procedure laid down under law, more particularly, the procedure laid

down under Section 35 of BNSS.

18. It is also relevant to note that in the remand case diary dated

10.02.2025, the Investigating Officer mentioned the following reasons

for the arrest of the accused :-

If accused is not arrested:

If the accused is not arrested, it will embolden criminals to target public representatives. The accused has already demonstrated a disregard for the law by directly

KL,J

threatening to kill sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and attempting to extort a sum of 20 lakh by instilling fear of death and public humiliation. Given his other criminal records, if he remains free, he is likely to engage in further acts of extortion and intimidation against the complainant and other public figures. There is an imminent threat that he may tamper with crucial evidence, or use his networks to intimidate witnesses. The complainant, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, represents a marginalized section of society, and such an attack on his safety is a direct assault on governance. Failure to arrest and remand the accused will not only allow him to continue his criminal activities unchecked but will also send a dangerous message that public representatives and vulnerable communities can be threatened, extorted, and silenced without consequence.

19. He has further stated that in this case, notice under Section

35(1) BNSS was not invoked to the accused due to the following

reasons:-

i. The accused has attempted to extort money by putting a sitting MLA under fear of death and defamation, thereby impeding the functioning of an elected representative. ii. The accused may further threaten the complainant and witnesses.

iii. The act of threatening and attempting to extort a representative of the SC community creates fear and

KL,J

insecurity among marginalised sections of society, necessitating strict judicial action.

iv. There is a strong likelihood that the accused may again abscond if released on bail, thereby hampering the fair adjudication of justice.

v. The accused is involved in a similar criminal case pending in Cyberabad Commissionerate. There is a likelihood of the accused continuing such criminal acts.

vi. The accused may also tamper with electronic and financial evidence in the cases in any manner.

   vii.      The accused refused to take the notice.
  viii.      The case is under investigation for examining some more
             witnesses.
   ix.       He would threat, inducement or promise to any person

acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing, such facts to the court or to the police officer.

x. He would not appear before the court as and when required/directed since the case is sessions trial. xi. He would not join the investigation of the case as and when required and will not cooperate in the investigation.

20. The Investigating Officer further stated that on 28.09.2024,

when 3rd respondent was present in his house, between 15:04 hours to

15:21 hours, he received whatsapp voice calls from Mobile No.

447886696497 to his mobile No.93466-62310 in which the accused

KL,J

threatened him by blackmailing his personal issues and demanded for

payment of Rs.20 lakhs and thereby defame his image by posting such

messages/clippings in social media. He further threatened 3rd

respondent to kill him if he denies to pay the said amount as

demanded. Again he received similar calls on the same day at about

20:18 hours. 20:22 hours, but he did not attend the said calls due to

fear. There is severe threat to his life with the unknown caller. On

29.09.2024 at 09:57 hours, 10:43 hours, he received whatsapp calls

from the same mobile number, but he could not attend the call.

21. Therefore, the accused posted the voice message at 10.45

hours containing threatening the complainant. Thus, according to the

Investigating Officer, the accused committed the aforesaid offences.

In the remand report, it is also mentioned that the Investigating Officer

has recorded the statement of 3rd respondent as L.W.1, L.Ws.2 and 3

are the circumstantial witnesses who corroborated the contents of FIR,

L.Ws.4 and 5 are mediators to CDF, L.W.6 Tahsildar who issued caste

certificate of L.W.1, L.W.7 is Tahsildar who issued caste certificate of

accused, L.W.8 SHO who issued FIR, photographs, statement of

witnesses by recording investigating Officer.

KL,J

22. It is also relevant to note that the accused herein is also

accused in Cr.No.6605 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S. Cyberabad.

The said crime was registered against the son of the petitioner herein

on the complaint lodged by B.Sandeep Raj, MLC and also politicians.

The complainant in the subject crime i.e. Cr.No.339 of 2024, the

complainant in Cr.No.6605 of 2024 are different and allegations are

also different. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot

contend that with regard to the same allegations, the Police cannot

23. As discussed supra, the complainants in both the crimes and

the allegations are also different.

24. As discussed supra, the offences alleged against the son of

the petitioner herein are 308, 351 (2), 351(1) and 351 (4) of BNS and

Section 3(1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the SC&ST Act. Admittedly, the

punishment for the offence aforesaid offences is seven (7) years and

below seven (7) years. Therefore, the Investigating officer shall

necessarily follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 of

BNSS.

25. It is relevant to note that in the complaint dated 29.09.2025,

3rd respondent specifically alleged that he received call from the very

KL,J

mobile number on 28.07.2024 at 20.18 hours and 20.22 hours. But he

did not attend the said calls due to fear. On 29.09.2024, again he

received wahtsapp call from the same mobile number at 09.57 and

10.43 hours. He did not attend the same. Therefore, accused posted a

voice message containing threatening 3rd respondent. The

investigating Officer has to conduct investigation with regard to the

same and he has to obtain FSL report etc. Admittedly, investigation in

the subject crime is pending.

26. It is relevant to note that Section 308 of BNS deals with

extortion and the same is extracted below:-

(1) Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.

(2) Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

(4) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(5) Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with

KL,J

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(6) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit, an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(7) Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed or attempted to commit any offence punishable with death, or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, or of having attempted to induce any other person to commit such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

27. In the present case, as per the complaint dated 29.09.2024,

the allegation against son of the petitioner is that he has demanded

money from 3rd respondent over phone. Admittedly, as on 28.09.2024

and 29.09.2024, the dates on which son of the petitioner made phone

call to the 3rd respondent, he was in United Kingdom. Therefore, if the

allegation of 3rd respondent is true, at the most, the said offence will

attract Section 308(1) of BNS. Whoever commits extortion shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to seven (7) years, or with fine, or with both.

28. Section 308 (5) of BNS says that whoever commits

extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to

KL,J

that person, or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to ten (10) years and

shall also be liable to fine.

29. As discussed supra, in the present case, even as per the

complaint of 3rd respondent, petitioner's son threatened 3rd respondent

over phone. The said aspects were not considered by the Investigating

Officer or the learned Magistrate while sending the petitioner's son to

judicial remand.

30. The aforesaid reasons mentioned by the Investigating

Officer seeking non-invoking Section of 35(1) of BNS are not

satisfactory. The said reasons are only on apprehension.

31. Admittedly, the accused did not file any application seeking

bail in the said crime. He is in jail from 10.02.2025. The only

explanation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is

that there is no officer in the said Court and the in-charge Court is not

receiving the bail application filed by the petitioner. However, he has

not stated the said facts in the present criminal petition. In fact, the

said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are factually

incorrect. The accused has to file bail application in the concerned

KL,J

Court, which will give SR number first, if the same is otherwise in

order, it will number and dispose if off in accordance with law.

32. As discussed supra, prima facie, the allegations are against

the son of the petitioner herein. Admittedly, 3rd respondent is a sitting

MLA from Choppadandi Assembly Constituency. The Investigating

Officer has recorded statement of the aforesaid witnesses. On the

ground of non-compliance of Section 35 of the BNSS, the proceedings

cannot be quashed. It is not a ground to quash the proceedings in the

subject crime. At the same time, the Investigating Officer has to

conduct investigation in the subject crime strictly in accordance with

law. He has to conduct investigation with regard to voice message

received from the accused mobile number to respondent No.3 mobile

number. He has to consider the same.

33. It is relevant to note that in Arnesh Kumar (supra), the

Apex Court considered the scope of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. (Section

35(1) of BNSS) and laid down certain directives and the same are

extracted below:-

11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions:

KL,J

11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;

11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

KL,J

11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

34. In Satender Kumar Antil (supra), considering the said

guidelines issued by it, in paragraph Nos.21 to 24, the Apex Court,

held as follows:

21. Section 41 under Chapter V of the Code deals with the arrest of persons. Even for a cognizable offense, an arrest is not mandatory as can be seen from the mandate of this provision. If the officer is satisfied that a person has committed a cognizable offense.

punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years, or which may extend to the said period, with or without fine, an arrest could only follow when he is satisfied that there is a reason to believe or suspect, that the said person has committed an offense, and there is a necessity for an arrest. Such necessity is drawn to prevent the committing of any further offense, for a proper investigation, and to prevent him/her from either disappearing or tampering with the eviderice. He/she can also be arrested to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person according to the facts, so as to dissuade him from disclosing said facts either to the court or to the police officer. One more ground on which an arrest may be necessary is when his/her presence is required after arrest for production before the Court and the same cannot be assured.

22. This provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-

KL,J

bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. Similarly, the police officer shall record reasons when he/she chooses not to arrest. There is no requirement of the aforesaid procedure when the offense alleged is more than seven years, among other reasons.

23. The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offense. Resultantly, while considering the application for enlargement on bail, courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due compliance of this provision. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to a grant of bail.

24. Section 41A deals with the procedure for appearance before the police officer who is required to issue a notice to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, and arrest is not required under Section 41(1). Section 41B deals with the procedure of arrest along with mandatory duty on the part of the officer.

However, the Apex court reiterated the directives issued by it in

Arnesh Kumar (supra).

35. It is relevant to note that Article 21 of the Constitution of

India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal

liberty except according to the procedure established by law. In

KL,J

Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India3, the Apex Court held that such

a procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.

36. In Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of

Maharashtra 4 the Apex Court held that this Court can grant interim

bail to the accused in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

37. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, more particularly,

considering the fact that, prima facie, there are serious allegations

against the son of the petitioner herein, this Court is not inclined to

scuttle the investigation. However, the Investigating Officer has to

conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law.

38. Admittedly, the son of the petitioner herein is in judicial

custody from 10.02.2025. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to

quash the proceedings in Cr.No.339 of 2024 against the accused.

39. Considering the fact that the accused/son of the petitioner is

in judicial custody from 10.02.2025, this Criminal Petition is disposed

of with the following directions:-

1978 (1) SCC 248

AIR 2021 SC 1

KL,J

i) The Superintendent, District Prison, Karimnagar, to release the

son of the petitioner Sri Yasa Akhilesh Reddy, s/o Yasa

Anantha Reddy, on execution of a personal bond for a sum of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).

ii) He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer by furnishing

information and documents as sought by him in concluding

investigation;

iii) He shall not interfere either with investigation or influence the

Investigating Officer in any manner;

v) He shall not involve in any criminal acts which will prejudicial

to fair and expeditious trial; and

vi) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat

or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or

to any Police Officer.

vii) He shall deposit his passport with the I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, at Karimnagar.

viii) He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the

Court concerned.

KL,J

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

Date:26 .03.2025.

Note: Registrar (Vigilance), is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate action against I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, strictly in accordance with law.

The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District is directed to look into the matter, take appropriate action against the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.339/2024 pending on the file of P.S.Kothapalli, Karimnagar District, in accordance with law.

b/o. vvr