[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Gade Innaiah Alias Gade Inna Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2026
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.341 OF 2026
DATED: 02.04.2026
Gade Innaiah ... Appellant - Petitioner - Accused No.1
Vs.
The State represented by
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad,
Ministry of Home Affairs. ... Respondent - Respondent - Complainant
This Court passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.LAKSHMAN)
1. Heard Sri V.Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel representing
Ms.Kamatam Rajitha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA,
appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 01.04.2026 in
Crl.M.P.No.514 of 2026 in RC.NO.04/2025/NIA/HYD of P.S. National
Investigation Agency, Hyderabad, passed by the learned IV Additional
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
3. Appellant is accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime.
4. The Investigating Officer has arrested the appellant on 21.12.2025.
5. The Investigating Officer has filed an application vide
Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2026 in the said crime seeking police custody of the
appellant. The same was allowed on 16.01.2026 by the learned
Designated Court granting police custody of the appellant for a period of
five days i.e., 19.01.2026 at 10.00 a.m., to 23.01.2026 till 04.30 p.m.
Learned Designated Court also imposed certain conditions.
6. However, the said police custody was cut short prematurely and
they have produced before the Court on 21.01.2026 itself.
7. Thereafter, the appellant has filed an application seeking bail on
22.02.2026. The same was posted for orders on 09.03.2026 and from
09.03.2026 to 13.03.2026.
8. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer has filed another
application vide Crl.M.P.No.514 of 2026 in the said crime seeking
custody of the appellant on the ground that the subsequent to the
premature completion of the earlier police custody, several witnesses
were examined, several financial transactions of the appellant were
scrutinized. Several facts have come up regarding which the accused
needs to be confronted. Several suspicion transactions have been
identified for which only the appellant can offer explanation. The data
extracted from the electric devices seized in the case has been provided
by CFSL on 20.02.2026. Voluminous data has been thoroughly analyzed
and several incriminating documents, chats etc were found, which again
needs to be confronted with the accused, as such the appellant is the only
person who can offer explanation to the contents found therein. It is
further contended that the said information cannot be
ascertained/extracted unless the appellant is interrogated one to one in
police custody of NIA.
9. Appellant filed counter in the said application contending that
though he was produced before the Court on 21.01.2026, the bail
application filed by him was posted for orders to 09.03.2026 and it was
adjourned to 13.03.2026. The Investigating Officer filed the present
application only on 12.03.2026 to defeat his right of bail. The
Investigating Officer has not mentioned satisfactory reasons seeking
police custody second time. There is delay of 60 days in filing second
application.
10. Vide impugned order learned Designated Court allowed the said
application holding that the Investigating Officer has specifically stated
the satisfactory reasons while seeking police custody second time and
provided a reasonable explanation regarding the need to confront the
appellant with newly analyzed incriminating electronic evidence and
suspicious financial transactions are sufficient to grant custody to the
NIA.
11. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred the present
appeal.
12. Sri V.Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the
learned Designated Court did not consider the aforesaid contentions
raised by the appellant herein. He has also placed reliance on the
Principle laid down by this Court in the case of Nossam Mohammed
Yunus Vs.The State of Telangana 1. In the aforesaid order, this Court
considered the contention of the appellant therein that in the second
application filed by NIA seeking police custody, they have specifically
mentioned that the Investigating Officer in the subject crime has
Crl.A.No.829 of 2023, dated 29.02.2024
thoroughly interrogated the appellant therein during police custody,
appellant was silent. Considering the said facts and also the right of the
appellant to remain silent as per Article 20 (3) of Constitution of India,
we have allowed the said Appeal, set aside the order dated 29.09.2023
through which learned Designated Court granted police custody second
time.
13. But, the facts in the present case are slightly different. In the
application filed by the Investigating Officer, NIA, there is specific
contention that subsequent to premature completion of earlier police
custody, several witnesses were examined, several financial transactions
of the accused were scrutinized. There is also mention with regard to the
data extracted from the electric devices seized in the case has been
provided by CFSL on 20.02.2026. The said data has been voluminously
analyzed and several incriminating documents, chats etc were found.
Therefore, the principle laid down in the said judgment, facts in the said
judgment are slightly different to the facts of the present case.
14. Admittedly, investigation is pending in the subject crime. There is
no dispute with regard to the principle that application filed seeking
police custody second time within stipulated time in terms of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1867 is maintainable. The said principle was
also laid down by this Court in the aforesaid Nossam Mohammed
Yunus.
15. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has filed the aforesaid
application seeking police custody second time within time lines, it is
maintainable. In the present case, they have specifically mentioned
reasons, however, they have not mentioned the number of witnesses
examined subsequent to premature completion of earlier police custody,
the number of transactions etc. Specifically, in paragraph No.10 of the
said application. Further there is mention with regard to examination of
witnesses subsequent to premature completion of earlier police custody,
financial transactions. There is specific mention with regard to data
provided on CFSL dated 20.02.2026 and analyzation of the said
incriminating documents including chats etc. On consideration of the said
aspects only, the learned Designated Court allowed the said application
filed by the Investigating Officer and granted police custody second time
for five days i.e., from 02.04.2026 at 10.00 a.m., to 06.04.2026 till 04.30
p.m., on imposition of certain conditions. There is no error in it.
16. In the light of the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the learned Designated Court, this Appeal is
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However,
Investigating Officer shall strictly follow the conditions imposed by the
learned Designated Court in the impugned order.
17. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this
Court that the appellant is suffering with spine problem, he underwent
operation twice, he is aged about 64 years and he requires third surgery,
which is scheduled on 04.04.2026. However, it is for the appellant to
seek bail by filing proper medical reports and it is for the Designated
Court to consider the same.
18. During the course of hearing, it is also brought to the notice of the
Court that the bail application filed by him was dismissed on 13.03.2026.
19. At this stage, Sri V.Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, on instructions, would submit that there are no proper facilities
in NIA office, therefore, appellant may be interrogated in the jail itself.
20. Whereas Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for NIA, on instructions would submit that NIA Office has all
the facilities and will not cause any inconvenience to the appellant.
Investigating Officer will ensure all the facilities to the appellant.
21. At this stage, Sri V.Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, seeks a direction to Investigating Officer in the said crime to
interrogate the appellant from 10.00 a.m to 05.00 p.m. considering his
age and ailments.
22. Considering the age of the appellant i.e., 65 years and the ailments
which he is facing, the Investigating Officer is directed to interrogate the
appellant from 09.00 a.m., to 05.00 p.m., other conditions imposed in the
impugned order remains unaltered.
23. With the above observations, this Appeal is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
_____________________________________
JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
02.04.2026
Dua
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.341 OF 2026
DATED: 02.04.2026
Dua
