Telangana High Court
Avisetty Vindhya Rani vs The State Of Telangana on 7 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.392 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the order dated
12.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2024 in
Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2013 in Crime No.10 RCT-CR-2/2024 in
C.C.No.2 of 2015 by the Principal Special judge for Trial of
SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, wife of
the accused officer against whom a case was registered by the
ACB for offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, filed the present petition under
Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. read with Section 8 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, seeking to raise
the attachment order in respect of agricultural land
admeasuring 0.33 guntas in Sy.No.475 of Peddamberpet
Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District, which was shown
as item No.20 of the attached assets, offering to deposit
Rs.3,30,000/- being its value as security. The petitioner
contended that she purchased the property under a registered
SKS,J
document in her name and intends to establish a petrol pump
on the said land under a franchise from Nayara Energy. The
prosecution opposed the petition contending that the property
was purchased by the accused in the name of his wife without
prior permission, forms part of the disproportionate assets,
and any release would defeat the object of the Ordinance. The
trial Court after hearing both sides, relying on judgments of
the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the
petition holding that releasing the property would frustrate
the purpose of attachment and permit the petitioner to enjoy
proceeds of an attached asset. Aggrieved thereby, the present
Criminal Appeal is filed.
3. Heard Sri Anurag Badeti, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant and Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -
State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
property was purchased by the appellant under a registered
sale deed dated 02.06.1998 from her independent income
through her proprietary concern, M/s Radhika Enterprises,
SKS,J
and that the ACB had wrongly included it as the asset of the
accused officer without considering her business records, IT
returns, and the financial transactions. He further submitted
that the appellant, aged about 68 years, intended to establish
a Nayara Energy fuel outlet on the said land and was even
willing to deposit the land value as security under Section 8 of
the Ordinance, yet the trial court dismissed her petition
without appreciating these factual aspects. Therefore, he
prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by
allowing this criminal appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel opposed
the submissions made by the appellant, stating that if the
attachment is raised, the appellant may alienate the property,
which would hamper the trial and the subsequent steps to be
taken by the ACB. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss
the criminal appeal.
6. In light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record,
and in view of the judgment in A. Sambaiah Nayak and
another v. State of Telangana, this Court is of the opinion
SKS,J
that the appellant is entitled to the relief sought subject to the
condition that the appellant furnishes a bank guarantee for an
amount equivalent to the market value of Rs.1.4 crores, as
reflected in the market value certificate, in terms of Section
8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Upon
furnishing such bank guarantee, the trial Court is directed to
raise the attachment, return the original documents to the
appellant, and obtain certified copies of the same along with
an affidavit of undertaking that the appellant shall not
alienate or encumber the said property until the disposal of
the criminal case pending before the trial Court.
7. With the above directions, this Criminal Appeal is
allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 07.11.2025
Note: Issue C.C. by 11.11.2025
B/o
SAI
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.392 of 2025
Date: 07.11.2025
Note: Issue C.C. by 11.11.2025
B/o
SAI
