Allowed

Mr. Sujoy Guha v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2024CRLP/1126/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking relaxation of conditions imposed in anticipatory bail. The Court held that depositing passports was an onerous condition not permitted under the special law governing passports, citing Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I., and therefore relaxed the requirement.

What did the court decide?

The condition to deposit passports imposed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.2137 of 2023 was relaxed.

Mr. Sujoy Guha Vs State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

INTHEHIGH COURT FOR THESTATEOFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THESIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLEDR.JUSTICE G.RADHARANI CRIMINALPETITIONNOi11260F2024
Between:
1 tVh Suloy Guha,S/o.Ramendra NarayanGuha,Aged about6.,tyears,Occ. CEO,CrrticaloglndiaPrivateLimited,GroundandFirstftoor,tt<j.Zge,f.R Colony, Domlur, Bangalore-560071	.:i
fvlr. Samir Panda,S/o.Bishnupadapanda, Aged.5gyears, Occ.Chief gpela^tiolgJ_O^fficer,C_riticatog_tndia^privateLimiied, Groundanbfirstftooi No.798, KRColony, Domlur, Bangalore -560071 2
...Petitioner/AccusedNo.1to4 AND M_rSiddarthlvlenon,S/o.Mukundan Menon, Aged about41 years,Occ.Head ofBusiness Development, Criticaloglndia^priv-ateLimited, GroundanOfirst Floor,No.798,KR Colony, Domlur, Bangalore-560071 Mrs.Shikha Agarwal,W/o.Manoj Agarwal,Agedabout47years,Occ. flnu!::^{C_ontroller,CriticatoglndiaprivateLimitdd, Groundand- First'Ftooi,} No.798. KRColony. Domtur, Bangalore-560071 3 4
Telangana,Representedby Stateof Hyderabad PublicProsecutor,HighCourt, ...RespondenUComplainant PetitionunderSection 482of Cr.P.C, prayingthatinthe circumstances stated	::;ii :q!"
in theaffidavitfiled insupportoftheCriminalPetition,theHigh Courtmaybe pleasedtorelaxtheconditions imposedbythelVAddl. Metropolitan SessionsJudge videordersDt.30.06.2023 inCrl.MP.No.2137of2023. Thepetition comingon forhearing,uponperusingthePetitionandthe
affidavitfiledinsupport thereofanduponhearingtheargumentsof SriPVishnuvardhanaReddy AdvocateforthePetitione(s),PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocateforthe Respondent. TheCourtmadethe following

¶2

¶3

TIIE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADI{A RANI

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No.ll26 ()F 2024

¶5

ORD ER:

¶6

This crirninal petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. r to 4 under Section 439(b) read with Section 482 ofCode ofCriminal procedure (for short, 'cr'pc.') to relax the conditions imposed by the IV Additionar Metropolitan Sessions Judge vide orders dated 30.06.2023 in crr.M.p.No.1l I37 o1202-1

¶7

Heard Sri p. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant public prosecutor representlng the respondent . State

¶8

i' 'r-rre rearned counser for the petitioners submitted that a farse complaint was lodged by the defacfo complainant against the petitioners_ accused Nos r to 4 without attracting the alreged offences. pursuant to registrarion of a case in crime No.447 0f 2023, the petitioneLs fited a petirion under Secrion 4-18 of Cr.p.C. vide Crl.M.p.No.2l37 of 2023 in Crime No..l47 of 2023 betbre the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Juclge, Hydera'ad seeking arrticipzrtory bair. The rearned IV Additionar Metroporitan Sessi.ns Judge, Ilydcrabatl granred anticipatory bair vide order darcd -30.06.2023 by irnposing crnr.'iri.ns' The Court directed the petitioners r. deposit their

¶9

OT.GRR,, Crl.P.No-1126 2024

¶10

¶11

passports before it. Owing to^{the conditions imposed by the Court,the} petitioners deposited their^{passports. ln fact, all the offences allegedwere} punishabte upto seven^{(07) years and Section41-A of Cr.P C' mandatesa} notice to accused seeking^{explanation for the allegations against them, but a} petition was wrongly fited^{for anticipatorybail.}

¶12

He further submitted that^{the entire dispute wasa civil transactionand} alt the petitioners^{wereworking and travelling for the sakeof their ernployment} to various destinations.^{Further their family memberswere also studyingand} were settled in abroad.^{The entire investigation was cotnpletedand all the} witncsses were examined.^{The only allegation made against thc petitioners was} that the medical diagnostic^{equipmentwas not stored in coldstorage arrd} therelore the said^{material was of no use.The relationship betwecn the dc-} .facto^{complainant and the accusedcompany was that of a custolner and couricr} of dclivery of items.

¶13

He turther submitted^{that the petitioners hereinfiled a petitionrridc} Crt.M.P.No.739 of^{2023seeking temporaryrelease of their passportsand that} an order was^passed by^{this court on 08.09.2023 releasingthe passportsor the} petitioners. The daughter of^{petitioner No'4 was studyingin Nerv York} University. The^{petitionerNo.4 was intending to visit her daughtcrlbr her} University Craduation Convocation^{in the month of May, 2024 alnd prayed to}

¶14

Or.GRR,l Crl.P.No.1126 2024

¶15

¶16

relax the conditions imposed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide order dated 30.06.2023 in Crt.M.P.No .2137 of 2023

¶17

The leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the IV Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide Crl.M.p.No.4l27 of 2023 in Crl.M.P.No.2137 of 2023 gave liberty to the peritioners u,hile dismissing the petition frled by them for relaxing the conditions to seek intr:rim custody of their passports, to furnish proofoltheir requirement to go abroarl, as and when requirement arises during the pendency of the C.C.No .4469 of i:023 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. But without complying the same, the petitioners had approached this Court and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶18

Perused the nature of the offences alleged against the petitionersaccused which were under Sections 407,420 and 421 ollpC. The complainant lodged a complaint contending that they wer.e involvecl in the business of distribution of medical products for life saving use to various hospitals across India and IWs. critica Log India Private Limited was providiug service to them but the company picked up their medical lilc saving nrarcrial tiorn their o.lfice lor delivery to various branches, but not delivcred the said pr.oduct and was holding the said products with an intention ro cause u,ronglul loss to their company and black mailing them fbr payment ol outstanrling ducs which was

¶19

Dr.GRR,, Crl.P.No.1126-2O24

¶20

¶21

an illegal trade practice. As the^{rnaterial was} out of^{cold chainfor thepast} three days i.e., for more than 72 hours, the rnaterial^was of^{no use and got} spoilt. As such, they have sustained^loss ol^{more thanRs. 18,50,000/-.}

¶22

The leamed IV Additional^{MetropolitanSessionsJudge, Hyderabad} while granting anticipatory bail to^{the petitioners on 30.06.2023imposed} conditions that the petitioners-accused^{Nos.l to 4 shall be releasedon their} furnishing personal bond for a surn^{of Rs.20,000/-with two sureties each for a} like sum each to the satisfaction of^{the arresting authority or leamedIII} Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Hyderabadwithinten (10) days} from the date of the order and that^{the petitioners shallnot leave the country} without prior permission of the learncd^{Magistrate arld they shall not threaten} the witnesses. The^{petitionersshall lurnish their phone numbers, E-mail} addresses, aadhar cards/identity^{cards and also residentialproof and shall} appear before the learned Magistrate^{Coutfbr judicialprocess,if any. If the} petitioners fail to appear beforc the^{Magistrate Court lor judicialprocess} without leave of the said Court^{and iu the event of issuanceof Non-Bailable} warrants, the bail stands automaticatly^{cancellcdand the sclf and surety bonds} would be forfeited. Further the^{pctitioners shall deposit their passporlsbefore} the learned Magistrate^.

¶23

DT,GRR,J Crl.P.No-1125 2024

-'t

\ \

The contention ol the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the condition ofdeposit ofpasspofts was onerous on the petitioners and reli:d upon the^judgment of the Hon'bte Apex Court in Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I.r, judgments ol this Court in M.T.R. Chowdary Vs. State of Telangana2, Konapur Mathada Nagaraj Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh3, olthe High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Nijal Navin Shah Vs. The Sitate of Maharashtra and Anr.{. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Narrda Vs.

¶28

C.B.I. (1 supra) held that:

¶29

In oLrr opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passporl. Though, no doubt, Section I0'l Cr.P.C. states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, irnpound any document or thing produced bcfirre it, in our opinion, this provision will only enablc the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because irnpounding a 'passport' is provided for in Section t 0(-l ) of thc Passports Act. The Passports Act is a spccial law rvhile the Cr.P.C. is a general law. [t is rvell settled that the special law prevails over the general larv vidc G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim 'Generalia specralibus non derogant'. Hence, irnpounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section lM Cr.P.C. though it can irnpound any other document or thing.

¶30

Appeal (Crl. ) Nt, I l9 ol l00S Crl.l'.No. 12.1i()^(,1l0l 8 dated l(r. I I .2013 Crl.l'.No.6071 ,rl-2010 datcd I L0l.20ll Crl Applicatrorr NO ll().1 of1022 dared 2.1 12.2022

¶31

OT.GRR,J Crl.P.No-1126-2024

¶32

¶33

l0.BasingontheabovejudgmentofthcHon'bteApexCourt,allthe High courts i.e., High^{courr of Telangana,Andhra Pradeshand Maharastra,} passed the above orders stating^{that the conditionof surrenderolpassportswas} not a god law and^{relaxed the satne.}

¶34

I L Considering^{the nature of the olfence which was civil in nature and it} was not a case of^{any rnisappropriation of funds,but violation of a contractand} keeping the articles^{in custodyas a lien towards the outstandingamounts due to} them, imposition ol^{the conclitionof depositof passportsis onerouson the} petitioners and the^{said condition is not valid as per.the judgmentof the} Hon'ble Apex courr^{in Suresh Nanda vs. c.B.I. (l supra),it is considered fit} to relax the above^{conditionpasseciby the IV Additional MetropolitanSessions} Judge,HyderabadinCrl.M.P.No.2l37of2023inCrimeNo.447of2023of P.S. Banjara llitts,^Hyderabad.

¶35