AruvelaShravan Kumar Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2025)

AruvelaShravan Kumar Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (Accused No.6) in Crime No.243 of 2024 of P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad, is entitled to pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail under section 482 of BNSS.

Court's answer

Following the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay, the Court noted that the consistent judicial view on anticipatory bail petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy, to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances and not as a matter of routine, and to be exercised cautiously so as not to impede the normal course of investigation.

Ratio / Principle

As seen from the record, the petitioner has been absconding, which weighed against the grant of pre-arrest bail.

Key takeaways

Material evidence was seized from the house of an accused forming a crucial part of the investigation against this petitioner; the investigation is incomplete, necessitating custodial interrogation.ratio¶60
A person named in a charge sheet is obligated to submit to investigation and to seek remedies in accordance with law and legal provisions rather than in defiance of them.ratio¶60
On considering the petitioner's conduct, the severity of the allegations and the established legal principles regarding anticipatory bail, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail; there are no merits in the case and it is liable to be dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pre-arrest bail under S.482 BNSS refused — Crl.P. No.13134 of 2024 (decided 21-02-2025, K. Sujana J.). Petitioner, arrayed as Accused No.6 in Crime No.243 of 2024 of P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad, was alleged (along with others) to have engaged in illegal phone tapping and recording, creation of profiles and location-monitoring of targeted individuals including leaders of political parties, and, after the ruling party's election loss, in formatting phones and damaging hard disks at the Special Intelligence Branch (SIB), destroying evidence. Charges include criminal breach of trust, mischief, disappearance of evidence and conspiracy, with S.409 IPC and S.66(F) IT Act, 2000, which the prosecution states carry life imprisonment; charge sheet filed, 69 witnesses examined, supplementary charge sheet contemplated. Held: anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy, not a matter of routine (Srikant Upadhyay, SC, followed); the petitioner has been absconding; material evidence seized from an accused's house leaves investigation incomplete, necessitating custodial interrogation; a person named in a charge sheet must submit to investigation and seek remedies according to law. Pre-arrest bail refused; Criminal Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

[³³⁸⁵ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY ' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION NOi 13134 0F 2024

Between:

Aruvela Shravan Ku-mar Rao, S/o. GiridharAruvela, Aged about. 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No. 6, Road No. 7g, JublieeHittslHVOeriUid. '

...Petitioner/Accused No.6

AND

The State 9l Tq]a,nggna, Rgg Oy its pubtic prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana. . Respondent/Coriplainant

...RespondenUComplainant

Petition under section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in conneition with FIR No.243 of 2024 of P.S Panjagutta.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of smt. Naga Deepika P, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri palle Nageswar Rao, public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE TI(,NOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{K. SUJANA}

,^{CR.II,IINALPETITIONNo.13134 of 2024}

ORAL ORDE:R,

This^()r ir r nal Petition is hled for grant of^pre-zLrret.t bail to the petitirrr ;. who is arrayed as accused in^{(lrimeN,1.243} of 2024 befcr: re Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderatrad.

The b^-ie' 'lcts of the case are that the petitione r, along with other :rc : .rsed individuals, engaged in illegar l^rhone tapping and re . ording of conversations. They allege<tly used technolopl, tc⁽ rrate prohles of targeted individurels, itrcl,,rding leaders of vir^{-i, '} rs political parties and their supporl e rs. The accused alxr tllegedly monitored the locaticns c I' these individuals rsr^- 11 their phones. Additionally, some c,rslt was seized durinl4 the investigation. Following thc loss, of the ruling party. Lr ,he assembly elections, the accutsed atk'gedly attempted t() c(^{, ,3r} their tracks by formatting their pfrone s and damaging ttLc r.,Lrd disks of computer systems al tfLe Special Intelligence IJ^{' r} nch (SIB) . This destruction of r:r'i lt:nce resulted ;n rr s prnificant loss of information gatherecl^,rvrrr the years.

2

sKs,J Crl.P-Ito. 13134 of 2024

\

Basing on the same, a case was registered vide Crime No.243 of 2024 by Panjagutta police, Hyderabad, charging the accused with various offences, including. criminal breach of trust, mischief, disappearance of evidence, and conspiracy. The case also involves charges under the pubiic Documents Destruction of Records Act, the Information Technologr Act, and other relevant laws. During the investigation, the police arrested several accused, including the petitioner, and examined 69 witnesses. They also collected documentary and scientiftc evidence. A charge sheet was Iiled, and the police sought permission to file further evidence in the form of a supplementary or additional charge sheet.

Heard Smt. P. Naga Deepika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Sri palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the pelitioner submitted that the case filed against the petitioner is entirely false and lacking in substance ald that merely interacting with other accused individuals, who are ofhcials of ,.the Special Investigation Bureau (SIB), does not imply his involvement in any criminal

--------=/

3

SKS,J Crl.P.No.: 3 134 of 2024

activity. Sf c lrrrther submitted that^{with rogardt )the} allegations oi :,olitical surveillance, the^{petitionermairrtains} that gatherinsl r'rd sharing political information^{s a1e gir imaLe} activity that^{( (',ls} not constitute a crime. The^asst:rt on^of prosecution tl:r.l this information facilitated othet' accused individuals in .:rmmitting a crime, pointing out that^pc:litical analysis anl r :::.t polls are inherently speculative e nd based on informat.c)n rom various sources, was questicrncd^.

Lezrrn e I^, lunsel for the^-petitioner contended thr rt the petitioner als;o lisputes allegations that he inducerl political leaders to join lie BRS party, stating that there is rto cr:dible evidence to ril f ).ort this contention. She furtlrer srrbr nitted that exchanlli, Li:, critical information about politic rl t rrgets AS and trackir:g I reir movements is not a valid allella tic,n , there is no co r,rete proof to substantiate these cor.Il(]rtions She further^{,rc .} :ended that the allegation that the pe'ti tioner obtained 15,13i , ns6bers from accused No.6, the Malaging Director of^j 'i,:ws, and shared them with othr:r s lacks evidence an I i t-herefore baseless. Moreover, lezrrned cc)unsel for the petit i,rr r' : pointed out that the SIB Police dt:parr-ment already has a l:ess to detaiied information about r:it izens,

4

sxs,J Crl.P.IIo.13134 of 2024

rendering this allegation redundant. She averred that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and that no witness was examined to sho:y that people were targeted. Additionalry, there was no mention of critical information, and the petitioner left the country before the institution of the FIR, frequently visiting his sister due to her ill health. Therefore, while contending that the allegations against the petitioner are unfounded, lacking in evidence, and do not constitute a crime under the penal Code, she prayed to the Court to grant pre-arrest bail Lo the petitioner by allowing this Criminal^petition.

In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments rendered in the cases of Arif Masood Vs. State of Madhya pradeshl, Kapil yadav @ Kapildeo Yadav Vs. State of Bihar.z, Manish yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3, and Md.Nazrul Islam Vs. State of Assama.

8 On the other hand, learned public prosecutor filed a counter opposing the bail petition, stating that the

'^2o2t cRt L I soa

'^{ntR oNLtNr} zo2o^pat 6t+

'^ntR ottLtttE 2022 ALL 5o1o

'zoog cRL L.t 3gzq

7/

5

SKS,J Crl. P.No.1313zr of²⁰²⁴

investiga tio e^{L :,'s uncovered a serious crimeinvolvin g cr} 'minal conspiracl', c:'i-ninal^{breachof trust, cyber terrorisrrr, al.Id} illegal sur u-erll ttce, among^{others, and that lhe} lret'tioner allegedly nLisr sed his ofhcial^{position to commit th Isaid} crimes, posin: a threat to^{national securitv an'i public} interest. F[r' r',erred that the^{charges againstthe} lret^tloner include Sect.o r 4O9 of the^{IPC and Section 66(F) ol ttLe rT Act,} 200O, wbich^(:rrry a sentence of^{life imprisonnlent, as such,} releasing^,-he accused at this^{stage could I'rirLdt rlhe} investigation, ,;end a wrong signal to^{the ptLt'-lic, and} compromis,: t^'t: integrity of the^{investigation.FIc zrs'serted} that accorclinr , to the^prosecution, ,{2^{revealecll]rc nz Lme of} this petitio1c,r '",r,hich resulted in him^{leaving the <:ourr[ty on} the inten,crr r: night of 13th and^{14th March, 2024, arrd that} the same c,r;n :r,les with the date of the^{first arrest in th': case.} Subsequr:n [¹ r l.his, A2 was arrested,^{whichclearll' sho urs the} unf2i1^q,:66 1r, ,rl the petitioner.

Leartrr:c l)ublic Prosecutor additionally^{contt:rde d that} despite a.n \l i\V being issued to the^{petitiont:r,he c icl not} appear bcfxe the trial Court, and for^{recall of the srLme, a} petition u'zLs; led. He averred that additional mzLt:ri,rl has

6

SKS,J Cil.P.Ito. 13134 of 2024

r

been filed showing that a petition was filed before the trial Court to proclaim the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, whereas, as of now, he has not been declared a proclaimed offender according to the prosecution. Therefore, while contending that the crimes alleged against the petitioner are unprecedented and of grave concern, he prayed to the Court to dismiss the petition.

With regard to the contentions referring to need for custodial interrogation and refusal of anticipatory bails, .and non granting of bail to absconding accused, the learned public Prosecutor relied on the judgments rendered in the cases of P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement s , Parvinderjit Singh and Another Vs. State (Union Territory Chandigarhlo, Muraleedharan Vs. State of Keralaz, Srikant Upadhyay and Others Vs. State ofBihar and Anothere.

Having regard to rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the only contention of the petitioner is that he is not concerned or involved in the alleged offence and that with vague allegations,

5 2079 9 SCC 24 6

2008 scc 13 431

ArR 2001SC 1699

a 2024 tNSC 202

1

SKS'J Crl.P.No.131:I4^of:)O24

t

I

the^{petitioner il;r'-Lplicated in the case' However'as seetlfr-om} therecord,:-h:11..-itionerhasbeenabscondingforalorrlltme. Further,^{mlrtt:r il I evidence was seizedfrom the house o{ the} ar cl^{. '.c crucial part of the investigationrl thrs} petttloner, regard^is s il incomPlete, necessitating^custodial rirt being^{so, at this juncture' it is rnt;'er'lttve} interrogation^1'r llon'ble^{SupremeCourt in the case ol Sirikant} to note^{thatI L t--} .r 8) held that the consistent^{judicial vie''v on} UpadhyaY^(st-1r petitions^{underSection438 of Cr'P'Ois that} anticiPatory^barr it is an^(>(i ';:,tional remedy^{to beexercised only in} r'cumslances^{and not as a matt('r o' rortlinc'} extraordinarl'r r;rlrasized^{that arrest shouldbe tltc lrrsl r plion} Though^{it is} ':r and should^bc -r: sorted to only when absolutely^{necessar y the} vr: of anticipatory^{bail is to preventheLras ;ment} primary^rrbj':r:t due to^{personalvendetta' 'rnd 8r'lnting} or humiliatio' anticiPato4^ll r I merely^{ensuresthat in the event t'f 'rrrest'} I be released^{on bail subjectto condit orrs' llut} the Person^shr r,. be exercised^{cautiouslyas it may irrpe de the} this Power^nll normal^{coltr s'} rf investigation^{Furthermore' a pers'rn facing} :' : named^{in a charge sheet is ob1ga ted to} investigatic'rL submit^tot r,:: authority^{oflaw and seek rerriecliesin} accordanct:^v r.h legal^{provisionsrather than in lciii''nce of}

8

sxs,J Crl.P-No. r3r34 of 2024

'1

t

them. As such, on considering the conduct of the petitioner in the case on hand, and on considering the severrt5r of the allegations leveled againstn the petitioner and applying the established legal principles regarding anticiparory bail, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pre_arrest bail. There are no merits in this case, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

72 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

{, SEC rlih OFFICER

To,

The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

One CC to Smt. Naga Deepika P, Advocate [OPUC]

Two CD Copies

ADI(/PSL

I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110212'125

ORDER

cRLP.No .131ilt. ot 2024

/= .'--. -- :<br><br>7'--::r-Sil'")
). c.
/;
z
i;I 23 tui z lx5 C)
';\ ,, +t
\ r,.... .,'r-: {; ,.*
.....,

DISMISSING I-TIE CRLP

p"t
()
(