Allowed

Mr. Sabbineni Surendra v. the State of Ts

Telangana HC17 Mar 2021CRLP/645/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment relaxes bail condition No.3 imposed by the High Court of Telangana, permitting the petitioner to retrieve his surrendered passport and travel abroad without specific court permission. The Court found no reason to act on apprehensions of tampering with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is permitted to take back his surrendered passport and travel out of India without obtaining specific permission from the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, subject to informing the

Mr. Sabbineni Surendra Vs the State of Ts — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

[^31s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENW NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVT IA No. 1OF 2O21 IN

¶6

CRLP NO: 645 OF 2O2L

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr. Sabbineni Surendra, S/o. Late Shri Papaiah,

¶9

Petitioner/Accused No. 2 (Petitioner in CRLP 645 OF 202L on the file of High Court)

¶10

AND

¶11

1, The State ofTelangana, Represented by Special Standing Counsel for CBI, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶12

Respondent No. 1

¶13

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch-Il, D. No. 3-41013/A, 1't Floor, CAC, TSERTC Bus Station, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500027 (R2 impleaded as per Court order dated 09.06.2021 vide I.A. No. 3 of 2021 in Crl.P. No. 645 of 2027)

¶14

Respondent No. 2/Defacto Complainant ( Respondents in-do-)

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition, the High Court may be pleased to relax the Condition No. 3 imposed by this Court in its order dated 17.03.2021 in Criminal Petition No.645 of 2021 to the effect that the Petitioner is permitted to take back his passport vied Ref. No.24389091, which was surrendered before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Nampally, Hyderabad and travel out of India without any specific permission from the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Nampally " Hyderabad subject to the compliance of other bail conditions in the order dated 17.03.2021 passed by th is Court.

¶16

CRLP NO: 645 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed therein, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to release the petitioner on Bail in event of his arrest in Crime/FIR. No. RC0782021E0001, dated 06.01.2021 pending before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad;

¶18

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed therein, and the order of the High Court dated t7.03.202L made in Crl,P. and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vikram Pooserla, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri K.Surender, Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard both sides,

¶21

The petitioner seeks by this petition to relax the condition No,iii i,e,, surrendering passport and not to leave the territory of India without permission of the Court concerned, which was imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on 17,O3.2O21. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has surrendered the passport and is complying with the other conditions till now. The plea of the

¶22

petitioner is that in rriew of the orders passed by this Court in a Writ Petition filed earlier, so also the order^passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Dethi, the petitioner was allowed to travel abroad with certain other conditiorrs and therefore, by relaxing the condition No,iii, the petitioner may be allolved to continue in complying with this order.

¶23

A perusal of th(: contentions, it transpires that vide orders dated 23,12.2O2O, passed bl,another coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.No.2 of 2O2o in W.P.No.23:148 of 2o2o, the petitioner was^permitted to travel abroad.

¶24

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi in O.A.No.227 of 2O16 vide orders dated O6,LL,2OL7t recorded the 'no objection' reported by the Counsel for the Punjab National Bank to the affect that, in case the 2nd defendant (petitioner herein) intimate the Tribunal before leaving the Country, he can undertake to travel abroad. Accordingly, a direction was given by the Tribunal l:hat the petitioner shall intimate the Tribunal before leaving the Country.

¶25

Inviting my attention to the aforesaid orders, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner sulomitted that the petitioner has several business interests which are shown in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and preventinq him to travel abroad by surrendering his passport would cause serious hardship not only to the petitioner personally but also to the Corporate bodies, which he is concerned and responsible. Thus, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the condition imposed by this Court may be relaxed. It is further submitted that the^petitioner has already traveled a broad multiple times pursuant to the orders^passed by this Court in thr: aforesaid Writ Petition and D.R.T-I, Delhi in O,A.No,2277 of 2016, lvithout deviating the conditions imposed and^he will follow the same conditions hereafter also.

¶26

Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for^the respondents did not specifically oppose the contentions^of the^petition,but expressed apprehension that the absence of the^{petitioner wouldtamper} the investigation,

¶27

A perusal of the contents of the^{petition, it transpiresthat by virtue} of the orders^passed b)'this^{Court in the above Writ Petitionand the orders} passed by the D.R.T-I, Delhi, the lretitioner^has traveled^{abroad several} times and as such therre is no^{complainteither from the police or other} investigating agencies regarding^{violation of any of the conditionsimposed} by this Court or D.R.T-I,^Delhi on earlier^{occasions,while the petitioner} was traveling abroacl. Hence, this Court finds no^{reason inthe} apprehension expressetd by the^{learned Special Public Prosecutorfor the} respondents, Under these circumstances, it would^{be justifiableto relax}

¶28

the condition No.iii imposed by this Court in the order, dated 17,03,2021 passed in Crl.P,No,645 of 2O2t while granting bail to the petitioner,

¶29

Accordingly, the petition is allowed, The petitioner is permitted to take back his passport, which was surrendered before the learned Principal Special Judge for C.B,I.Cases at Nampally, Hyderabad and travel out of India, without obtaining any specific permission from the said Court. However, the petitioner shall inform the Court concerned by way of an affidavit, each time when he is traveling abroad, indicating when he is leaving the Country and when he is coming back, The petitioner shall also provide the same information to the investigating officer concerned, by way of letter/s, Besides this, the petitioner shall continue to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition and also the conditions imposed by the D.R.T., Delhi.

¶30

Sd/-I.NAGA LAKSHMI ASSISTA EGISTRA

//TRUE^COPY/l

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2) The Superintendent of Police, BS & FB, Bangalore, Bangalore District. The Inspector of Police, CBI BS & FB, Bangalore, Bangalore District. 4 State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch-Il, D. No. 3-41"013/A, 1't Floor, CAC, TSERTC Bus Station, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500027 5. Two CCs to Sri K. Surender, Spl. P.P., High Court ofTelangana at Hyderabad (our)

¶35

one CC to Sri Vikram Pooserla, Advocate (OPUC)

¶36

one Spare Copy

¶37

Note: in the order dated 29.04.2021 in I.A. No. 1 of 2027 in Crl.P. No. 645 ot 2021 in cause title added the respondent No. 2 as per Court order dated 09.06.2021 in I.A. No. 3 of 2021 in Crl.P, No. 645 of 2021.

¶38

Substitute this amended order, in place of earlier order which was dispatched on 07.05.2021

¶39

Sd/-I.NAGA LAKSH14I ASSISTANT REG]STRAR

¶40

HIGH COURT

¶41

GSDJ

¶42

DATED:29l04l2O2t 09.06.2021

¶43

AMENDED ORDER

¶44

t gCi/iL
"4i,
L
il1 lu1 ZnZl

¶45

rA NO.1 0F 2021 IN CRLP.No.645 of^2O2L

¶46

DIRECTION

Mr. Sabbineni Surendra v. the State of Ts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sabbineni Surendra v. the State of Ts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damerla Sai Baba, Mahabubnagar Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp and Anr.

Sri G.Ramesh Babu Vs State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor

The State of a.P., Vs Shymala Linga Swamy

Vaidya Aditya Vs The State Acb

Puvvala Likhita Vs The State of Telangana

Varikuppala Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana