! lt$lesn Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

Order

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.2279 OF 2025 Heard Sri S.Sharath Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, leamed Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Despite service ofnotice, none appears for 3'd respondent'

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.339 of 2024 pending on the file of P'S' Kothapalli. Karimnagar District. Facts of the case:-

3. The petitioner herein is father of the accused. The offences alleged against the son of the petitioner herein are punishable under Sections 308, 351 (2), 351(l) and 351 (4) ofBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for shorl, 'RNS') and Scction 3(1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled castes and the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Acl,2015 ( for shorl,'the SC&ST Act')' On the complaint dated 29.09.2024 lodged by 3'd respondent, the Police Kothapalli, registered a case in Cr.No'339 of 2024 initially for the offences under Sections 308,351 (2),351(1) and 351 (4) ofBNSS' I 2 KL.J ( rI l' No 2279 of2025 During the course of investigation, the Investigating Offi cer added Sections of lirvr i.e. Sections 3(l) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) olthe Scheduled Castes and Ie Scheduled Tribes lPrevention of \trocities) Amendment ,{ct, 2015 ( for short, 'the SC&ST Act') by n'ey of fiting alterarion me ro dated 08.l1.2024.

4. In the complaint dated 29.09.2024 of 3'd respordent, the allegations leveled are as follows:- 3'd respondent elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from il hoppadandr Assembly Constituencv ol K arimnagar district from hrdian National Congress. Since then, he has been looking after ..relfare of the people. On 28.09.2024 betucen 15:04 hours to [ 5:l t hours, he received whatsapp voice calls ll'om Mobile No. 4478866)t;.191 to his mobile No.93466-62i10 in r,"hicl, the caller threatened t,irrL by blackmailing his personal issues, demanded for payment of Rs !10 lakhs and thereby defame his irnage by posting such rnessages/clippings in social media. He further threatened 3'd respondent tr kill him if he denies to pay the saitl i rnount as demanded. Again he received similar calls on the sarne da y at about 20:18 hours. 20:22 hours, but he did not attend the said crLlls due to fear. There ii severe threat to his life with the unknou,n caller. On Ot ) KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of2025 I

29.09.2024 at 09:57 hours, 10:43 hours, again he received whatsapp calls from the same mobile number, but he did not attend' On that the caller posted a voice message by 10:45 hours, threatening him' Hence, he requested the police to take necessary action agdinst the unknown caller and protect his life.

5. Sri S. Sharath Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner would conlend as lollows:- i. The contents of the complaint dated 29.09'2024 lacks the ingredients of the olfences alleged against the son of the petitioner herein. ii. In the complaint dated 29.09.2024, 3'd respondent did not mention the name of the son of the petitioner herein' iii. He did not mention his caste name. iv. Even then, the Investigating Officer in the subject crime conducted investigation with regard to caste of 3'd respondent and the son ofthe petitioner and obtained caste certificates' v. With regard to the very same allegations, P'S' Cyberabad' registered a case in Cr.No.6605 of 2024 against the son of the petitioner herein for the offences under Section 351(l) of BNS and Section 67 ofthe Information Technology Act, 2008 ( for I 4 I'L.J llr.P No 2279 o12025 short. 'thr: IT Act'). At the instance of the lnvestigatirg Officers in both the crimes, Look Out Circulars (LOC) were is'iued. vi. The sor of the petitioner was in United Kingdorn for the purpos r of his employment. vii. He cartc to India on 09.02.2025 to attend his mot1.r,:r's-in-law funeral Cybera bad Police arrested him at Bangalore l, irpor.t on

09.02.:'.(.t):.4. 1X Thc acc,lsed rvas produced before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kukatpally on 10.02.2024 in Cr.No.6605 of 201,4 x Leamed Magistrate retumed the remand on the ground of non- cornpliai,:e of Section 35 of BNSS. x1. Leamed \4agistrate has also issued memo to tl-re In'estigating Olllcer xl1. Thereafter, Police Cyberabad released the accusecl, on that, irnmcdiately, the Police, Kothapalii arrested him on 0.02.2024 in the s.ubject crime dated 19.02.2024 xlll. Tl.re Pclice, Kothapalli, produced the son of tl're petitit,ner herein before ,.he leamed Judicial Magistrate of Filst Class, at Karimnagar, who in tum sent him to judicial custody. @ 5 KL,J Crl P No 22?9 of2025 The punishment prescribed lbr the aforesaid offences is seven (7) years and below seven (7) years. xv. Therefore, the Investigating Officer shall comply with the procedure laid down under Section 35 of BNSS. xvl. In the present case, the Investigating Officer failed to follow the said procedure. Without considering the same, the learned Magistrate sent son of the petitioner to judicial custody. He is in judicial custody lrom 10.02.2025 onwards. Thus, there is violation of the procedure laid down under Section 35 of BNSS and therefore, both the Police and leamed Magistrate are liable for disciplinary action as held by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Biharl, Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of tnvestigation2 and order dated

06.08.2024 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. ' zor+ 1s; scc zz: 2 (2022) LiyeLaw SC 577 I 6 KL,J (l.l P No 2279 of2025

6. r /hen:as, leamed Public Prosecutor would c,:rntend as follows:- The prcsent petition filed by father of the accused under Section 528 of BNSS is not maintainable and he has no locus to file the present petition in the absence of authorization cr General Porver :1- Attomey

11. Thele is rLo violation of the procedure laid dou,n under Section 35 of IINSS and principle laid down by this Court n Arncsh Kumar rrnd Satender Kumar Antil (supra) iii. There art: serious allegations against son of the pctitioner helein. He rnadc phone call to the 3'd respondent, sittin-e \,ILA and started rlackmailing him by demanding money, He has threatenecl 3'd lespondent to kill. The In restigating Officer has power to investigate irrto all the aspects iri:luding the caste of 3'd respondent. V1 3'd resp,o6flsn1 is sitting MLA from Choppidandi Co rstituency which is r:served for Scheduled Caste. v "f,he Inv:stigating Officer in the subject crime specifically mentionecl reasons for arrest of the son of the petitioner herein. @ l KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of2025 viii. Instead of filing an application seeking bail, the father of the accused, filed the present petition to quash the proceedings' ix. Investigation is pending. x. Scuttling the investigation at threshold is impermissible' With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present petit ion.

7. As discussed supra, despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 3'd respondent.

8. In the light of the said submission, more parlicularty, with regard to the submission of leamed Public Prosecutor that the present petition filed by father of the accused is not maintainable, it is relevant to note that the present petition is filed by the father of the accused i'e' Sri Yasa Anantha Reddy. Yasa Akhilesh Reddy is the accused in Cr.No.339 o12024.

9. Perusal of the record would reveal that initially the present criminal petition was filed by Y.Anantha Reddy, father of the accused and thereafter, in the first page of the cause title, the name of the accused i.e. Y.Akhilesh Reddy, s/o Y'Anantha Reddy, is mentioned with pen. Thus, there is correction. Vakalath is signed by father of the accused i.e. petitioner herein. Even contents of the entire criminal ,:.ix t, 8 KI,.J (lrl.f No.2279 of2025 petition wou I(l reveal that it is filed by father of th: accused l.e Y. Anantlra Reddy.

10. Rel3isLry'of this Court raised the following objcctron:- "Please clz.rif,'as to how the above SR has been hled sccking tle relief ofquash uh.rein the accused is in jail. " I 1 . Lelrrred counsel for the petitioner re-presented r-he bundle with the follcrr in-q explanation:- 'f he i krn'btc Supreme Court in Aranab Gosrvami's crLse had obserled t:rit lvhcn thc remand of an accuscd is absolutell iJlegal and contrar)- tr, Ie principlc laid down by tlie IIon'blc Supremc (lourt in Arnesh Krmar (supra) case. The Hon'ble Iiigh Courl can grut interitn bail in a c'irninal petition filed undcr Sbction 482 of Clr.P.C. Thc same principle vra; tbllowed by our High Court while granting interir baiI to Allu Arjun's case Crl.l'.No.l 5270 of 2024. Even in Satender Kumar Antil (suprr) also thc lIon'blc Supreme Court had obscrvcd hat the Ieanrcd lvf x irrtrntc invariably should issuc Section 41-A Cr.l'.C noticc equivalont tr Section 35 of BNSS instead of sending the accused ,o jail. Thereafler, the Registry numbered the present criminal p,)tition and listed it tbr hr:aring

12. As rliscussed supra, the accused is in judicial cur.;tody from

10.02.2025. Admittedly, the accused did not move any rrpplication seeking bail in tl.re saiC crime before the Court concemed 4 9 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of2025

13. In the counter filed by 2nd respondent, except stating that the present petition is filed by father of the accused on behalf of his son, he did not even contend that the present petition is not maintainable' However, it is a legal ground and it can be raised at any time, atany stage, without pleading.

14. There is specific contention by the leamed counsel for the petitioner that the Police did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 of BNSS while remanding the son of the petitioner' Leamed Magistrate without satisffing himself with regard to thc same, remanded the accused to judicial custody on 10.02'2025 and he is in judicial custody since i0.02.2025. Admittedly, the accused did not move any application seeking bail in the Court concemed'

15. In the light of the same, this Court cannot dismiss the present application on the gror.ind of locus. Admittedly, father of the accused is before this Court.

16. As discussed supra, on the complaint dated 2g'Og'2024 Iodged by 3'd respondent, Police Kothapalli has registered a case in Cr.No.339 of 2024 against unknown accused with mobile No.447886696497 for the offences punishable under Sections 308' 351 (2),351(1) and 351 (4) ofBNS. The name ofaccused is not there l,{l o--*d ','-*{ ..,'.r ,{ i \ I n l0 Kt.,l L'rl.F No 2279 of2025 0 in the complai,rt. As rightly contended by the leamed counsel for the petitioner, 3" r e spondent did not mention the name of the rrccused in the complaint and caste of the J'd respondent in the said complaint dated 29.09.2()24. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has filed alteration memo dated 08.11.2024 adding Section 3(l) ( r ) (s),3 (2) (va) ofthe SCS.lll- Act'.

17. In the said alteration memo, there is no menl.ion about obtaining calr ,lrta to ascertain the fact that son of the petiticner made call to the !" respondent by using his mobile No.447886696497. There is no lention about the said aspects. Admiltedty, the punishment fo,'all the aforesaid olfences is seven (7) years and below seven (7) yerLrs. I herefore, the Investigating Officcrs shall follow the procedure laid riolr'n under law, more particularly, thc pror.'edure laid down undcl liection 35 of BNSS. 1 8. It i s also relevant to note that in the remand case r liary dated

10.02.2025. th,: Investigating Officer mentioned the follorving reasons for the an'est of the accused :- If accur;ed is not arrestcd: I f the accused is not arrested, it will embc'lden criminals to target public representatives. The accused has already ,J,:rnonstrated a disregard for the law by dir.rctly q 11 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 ot2025 threatening to kill sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and attempting to extort a sum of 20 lakh by instilling Fear of death and public humiliation. Given his other criminal records, il he remains free, he is likely to engage in further acts of extortion and intimidation against the complainant and other public figures. There ls an imminent threat that he may tarnper with crucial evidence, or use his networks to intimidate witnesses. The complainant, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, represents a marginalized section of society, and such an attack on his safety is a direct assault on govcrnance. Failure to arrest and rernand the accuscd will not only allow him to continue his criminal activities unchccked but will also send a dangerous message that public representatives and vulnerable communities can be threatened, extorted, and silenced u,ithout consequence.

19. He has further stated that in this case, notice under Section 35(l) BNSS was not invoked to the accused due to the following reasons:- I Thc accused has attempted to cxtort money by putting a sitting MLA under fear of death and defamation, thereby impeding the functioning of an elected representative. ll. The accused may further threaten the complainant and 1l l. witnesses. The act of threatening and attempting to extort a representative of the SC community creates fear and \ :li 4 ., .,-i..l{tiq .it|.;-;.;::;! I t2 KL,J (il F No 2279 of2025 6 inse:ruitr, among marginalised sections ol soc iety, necr:ssitaling strict judicial action. The'e is a strong likelihood that the accused mal again abscond if released on bail, thereby hampering lhe fair adjud t ation o f.iustice. The a::used is involved in a similar criminal casc pcnling in (ll berabad Commissionerate. There is a likelihooC of the irccused continuing such criminal acts. The ac;uscd may also tampcr rvith electronic and fina,rcial elidc,r,:e in the cases in any nranner. The ac:uscd refused to take the notice. The case is under investigation for examining some r .Iore q,itr e;:;es. lx. Hc q culd threat, inducernent or promise hr an) ne rson acqrraintcd rvith the fact of the case so as to dissuade them lronr cisr.:losing, such lacts to.the court or 1o the p,rlice offi,:er. x He rrruld not appear before the court as attd lihen rcqtrire d,'directed since the casc is sessions trial. He uculd not join thc investigation of the casc as and rvhe n required and will not cooperate in the inlcstigaticn,

20. The Investigating Officer furlher stated that on 28.09.2024, when 3'd resr,ondent was present in his house, bet*een 15:(14 hours to 1 5 :21 hours, he received whatsapp voice calls lrom lVlobile No. 4478866964t't'1 to his mobile No.93466-62310 in rdrich tlLe accused ,a l3 KL,J Crl.P. No.2279 of2025 tkeatened him by blackmailing his personal issues and demanded for payment of Rs.20 lakhs and thereby defame his image by posting such messages/clippings in social media. He fuither threatened 3'd respondent to kill him if he denies to pay thb said amount as demanded. Again he received similar calls on the same day at about 20:18 hours. 20:22horxs, but he did not attend the said calls due to fear. There is severe threat to his life with the unknown caller' On

29.09.2024 at 09:57 hours, 10:43 hours, he received whatsapp calls .from the same mobile number, but he could not attend the call.

21. Therefore, the accused posted the voice message at 10.45 hours containing threatening the complainant. Thus, according to the lnvestigating Officer, the accused committed the aforesaid offences- In the remand report, it is also mentioned that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of 3'd respondent as L.W.1, L.Ws.2 and 3 are the circumstantial witnesses who corroborated the contents of FIR, L.Ws.4 and 5 are mediators to CDF, L.W.6 Tahsildar who issued caste certificate of L.W.1, L.W.7 is Tahsildar who issued caste certificate of accused, L.W.8 SHO who issued FIR, photographs, statement of witnesses by recording investigating Officer. Il, 3&r 4 I 14 KL,J alrl l No 2279 of2025 6,)

22. lt is also relevant to note that the accttsed her,:in is also accused in Cr'.No.6605 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S. Oyberabad. The said crinre' rvas registered against the son of the petiti<'ner herein on the cornplairt lodged by B.Sandeep Raj, MLC and also .roliticians. The complainant in the subject crime i.e. Cr.No.339 of 2024, the complainant ir, Cr.No.6605 of 2024 are different and alleliations are also different. Iherefore, learned counsel for the pt'titiorrer cannot contend that vlth regard to the same allegations, the Police cannot register second FIR.

23. As discussed supra, the complainants in both the ,.:rimes and the allegations are also different.

24. As cliscussed supra, the offences alleged against the son of the petitioner lrt:rein are 308,351 (2),351(1) and 3,51 (4;of nNS and Section 3(1) (, ) (s),3 (2) (va) of the SC&ST Act. Admittedly, the punishrnent Ib. the offence aforesaid offences is seven (7) years and below seven (7) years. Therefore, the Investigating of ircer shall necessarily fbllow the procedure laid down under Sect on 35 of BNSS

25. It i; rr:levant to note that in the complaint dated 29.09.2025, 3'\espondent specifically alleged that he received call fror n rhe very : '! I :1{t! a l5 KL,J Cn P . No 2279 of 2025 mobile numbe r ot 28.07 .2024 at 20.18 hours and 20'22 hours' But he did not attend the said calls due to fear. Ott 29'09'2024, again he received wahtsapp call fiom the same mobile number at 09 '57 and

10.43 hours. He did not attend the same. Therefore; accused posted a voice message containing threatening 3"1 respondent' The investigating Officer has to conduct investigation with regard to the same and he has to obtain FSL report etc. Admittedly, investigation in the subject crime is Pending.

26. lt is relevant to note that Section 308 of BNS deals with extortion and the same is extracted below:- (1) Whoever intentionclly pllts anv person in fgnr 1rf an.v iniur-v to that p"rron. o, to anl" othcr, and thcrebl; dishoncstl-v induccs thc ptrson so put in i'eai-to delir,c. to at'I), persoll ally prL),lert,v..t-vitluable sccuriti"' or anything signecl ot sealetl i"hicL nral'. be convertcd into a valuable securitl'- commi[s cxt0rlion. (l) Whoevel comtnils cxlollion sl.Lzrll be punished rvilh imprisontnent of eithcr dcscriptiort fbr ar tcrm ri'hich n.ra-v e\tcnd to sL'ven yctrs' or rvith fine' or with both. (3) Whoever', in ortler Lo 1he commitliug ol cxtortion' ptlts an-Y person rn t-ear, or attempts to pill any pcrson in fcar', of any injur-v' shall be punished r,vith imprisonnient ;f eithcr .lcscription lor a ternt u'hiclr ntay cxtcnd to tuo yeals. or rvith f-rue. or with both. 14) Whoever', in order to tl-re con.rmitting of extortiot], puts or attempts to put ,rr,, p"r..rn in f'cal of dcath ot of gricvous hud to that pel son ol to any other- shali be punishecl rvith imprisonmenr of eithel descriplion for a term *hich may' exlend to seYer -vears. and shall also be liable to fine' (5) Whoever cornmits cxtortiou by puttillg an-v person in fear of death or of g.i""or'r. hurL to that person or io any other. shall be punished with I i i I 16 KL,] ( rrl t No 2279 of2025 s irnpriscrnmerrt of ei rer description fot a tenn rvhich rnal cxtcltd to ten 1.ears, alrd sl a 1 also be liablc to t'itc. (6) \\'hoer,er, r or.le[ to the comnitting ol extortiort, puts or allei]] pts Lo put ant' pcrsorl ir icar of an accusatioll against that pcrson or att-,-- other. of haviug conr rilLCd- or attcmptcd 10 cornmit, an oilcncc pi;nishrrblc rvith death or rr,itlr lrnplisonment tbr li1'e. or u,ith irnptisoulnent ii)r u tc:m rvhich rnay exlend L) tcrl years, shall be punished rvith imprisonmcnt ol'either description lor .r tt:rnr rvhich ma1, extend to 1en 1'ears- and shall r,.lsr be liable to finc. 17) Whoeve r (rolrrnils extortion by putling any person in l'e rr of an accusation irgajnst that person or any othct. of havrng corrrtrritled or attcmptc(l lLr conrmit an1.- of}'cncc punishablc rvith death. or rvitlt imprisonrrelrt i rr lil'e, or r.vith imprisorrnrr'nt Ibr a terni u,hich ma-r exlcnd to 1e,r !'ears. or oI lrar,inu atten]pted to iuduce an-\, olhel person lo cr)rlmit such oltcnce. shalL be pLurishecl rvith imprisonnrcnt ol ,.'i1her rlcsclilrl on lor a tclrn riliclr lu.r, crtcnd to tcn vcars^ aud shall also hc liablc l.r tiri.

27. lr-r t['rt: present case, as per the complaint daled 2).09.2024, the allegatiorr against son of the petitioner is that he has demanded lnoney frorn 3'J respondent over phone. Admittedl), as on 1.18.09.2024 and 29.09.202.1 thc dates on which son of the petitioner rxade phone call to the 3'd respondent, he was in United Kingdom. 'fhere forc, if the allegation of 3 " respondent is true, at the most, the saicl o lfence will attract Section 308(1) of BNS. Whoever commits extortic,n shall be punished u'ith .mprisonment of either description fbr a tem which may extend to s,rven (7) years, or with fine, or with both.

28. Se ction 308 (5) of BNS says that rvhoevel commits extortion by prrlting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to 6 7,1 KL,J Crl.P. No 2279 of?025 that person, or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten (10) years and shall also be liable to fine.

29. As discussed supra, in the present caie, even as per the complaint of 3'd respondent, petitioner's son threatened 3'd respondent over phone. The said aspects were not considered by the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate while sending the petitioner's son to judicial remand.

30. The aforesaid reasons mentioned by the Investigating Officer seeking non-invoking Section of 35(l) of BNS are not satisfactory. The said reasons are only on apprehension.

31. Admittedly, the accused did not file any application seeking bail in the said crime. He is in jail from 10.02.2025. The only explanation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that there is no ofhcer in the said Court and the in-charge Court is not receiving the bail application filed by the petitioner. However, he has not stated the said facts in the present criminal pelition. In fact, the said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are factually incorrect. The accused has to file bail application in the concemed : 18 KL.J (lrl t No.2279 of2025 s Court, which ,rill give SR number first, if the sarne is othelwise in order, it will nrrnber and dispose if off in accordance u'ith law

32. As cliscussed supra, prima facie, the allegati,rns ;lre against the son ol tht: oetitioner herein. Admittedly, .3'r respondent is a sitting MLA from Ohoppadandi Assembly Constituency. The ln',,estigating Officer has recorded statement of the aforesaid witnesse's. On the ground ol non-compliance ofSection 35 of the BNSS, the ploceedings carrnot be qurshed. It is not a ground to quash the proceed ngs in the subject crimt:. At the same time, the lnvestigating Otfir:el has to conduct inver;trgation in the subject crime strictly in accorrlancc with law. He has to conduct investigation with regard to voic,: lnessage teceived ll'cxrt the accused mobile number to respondent N,r.3 r-r-robile number. fle has b consider the same.

31. It rs relevant to note that in Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Apex Court considered the scope of Section 41-A of Cr.P.O. (Section 35(l) of BNSS) and laid down certain directives and the same are extracted belorv:- 1I. Orr erxleavour in this judgment is to ensure that police off:cers do not arr:st the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not aulhoris,: Cetention casually and mechanically. In order to erlsrtrc rvhat rvc havc observed above, we give the following dircctionl.: *sjffi :j.I! :.iii* t9 KL,J Cd P No 2279 of2025 I 1 .1. All the State Governments to instruct its police olllcers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisft themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;

11.2. All police oflicers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(tXbXii); 1 1.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before thc Magistrate for furlher detenlion; I 1.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention ol the accused shall peruse the report fumished by the police olficer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks liom the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by thc Superintendent of Police of the district lor the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11-6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police oflhe district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concemed liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be pturished for contempt of court to. be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. l I i I I -r,4. . , ittr: -' , !. a' \ -*'-'*t-"'.-'' 20 KL.] ,'rl.l'. Nr'.2279 o42025 -\k'' 1 J .8. Arrthrrising detention without recording reasons as alirrt:said by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for dcparlmental action by the appropriate High Court.

34. In Satender Kumar Antil (supra), considerinrl the said guidelines isr;rLr:d by it, in paragraph Nos.21 to 24, the Apex Court, held as lollorss,: 2l. Scctior 4l r.u.rder Chaptcr V of the Code deals with the arrt st of persons ll ,'en lbr a cognizable offense, an anest is not mand.rtory as can Le seen liom the mandate of this provision. If the ollir er is satisliec trat a pcrson has committed a cognizablc off.rnse. punisharl: lrith imprisonment for a term which mal'be loss than seveu )crus. or rvhich may extend to the said period, rvit h or u'ithout fine. an arrest could only follow when he is satlsliec that thcre is a reasou to believe or suspect, that the said pcrsol has commitlerl an ol'f'ense, and there is a necessity for an anest. 'iuch lecessit ', is draun to prevent the committing of an_v- 1l rther oflbnse. lor a propcr invcstigation. and to prevent himihcr lront either dislrpearing or tampering with the eviderice. I{e/she can also be arrested to prevent such person from makit.rg any inducerr er.lt. threat, or promise to any person according to thc 1acts, so as to dissuade him from disclosing said facts eithel to thc ,)ourt or to thc p,rlicc officer. One more ground on whicl.r an arest mav be nece;s'r-y is *,hen his/her presence is required aftel arrest for protluction bcfore the Court and the same cannot be assured.

22. This pr,x.ision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writirig '.r,1rile rnaking the arrest. Thus, a police olficer is < utv- 21 KL,J Crl.P No 2279 of2025 bound to record the reasons for arrest in wfiting' Similarly, the police officer shall record reasons when he/she chooses not to arrest. There is no requirement of the aforesaid procedure when the offense alleged is more than seven years, among other reasons'

23. The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offense' Resultantly, while considering the application for enlargement on bail, courts will have to satisff themselves on the due compliance of this provision. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to a grant ofbail.

24. Section 41A deals with the procedure for appcaranOe before the police officer who is requircd to issue a notice to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, and arrest is not required under Section 4l(1)- Section 41B deals with the procedure ofarrcst along with mandatory duty on the part of the ofhce r' However, the Apex court reiterated the directives issued by it in Arnesh Kumar (suPra).

35. It is relevant to note that Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law' In 22 KI, J cr| No 2279 df2025 6 Menaka Garndhi vs. Union of Indiar, the Apex Courl held that such a procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable 36 ln Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtrat the Apex Court held that this Courl can grlnt interim bail to the a<;cused in exercise of its powers under Afticle 226 of the Constitution o i lndia and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C

37. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, mole p a.rlicularly, considering ihc fact that, prima facie, there are selious rllegations against thc sorr of the petitioner herein, this Court is not nclined to scuttle the irri cstigation. However, the Investigating Offi cer has to conduct inr'er;tigation strictly in accordance with larv 3 8. Aclnrinedly, the son of the petitioner herein is in .iudicial custodl' ti'onr 10.02.2025. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the prcceedings in Cr.No.339 of 2024 against the accrrsed

39. Cr,nsidering the fact that the accused./son ofthe p;titioner is in judicial custcdl- from 10.02.2025, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with the Fcllcu'ing directions:- ' t978 (l) scc:r.18 n ern 202 r sc t ('' 23 KL,J Crl P. No 2279 of2025 I I i) The Superintendent, District Prison, Karimnagar' to release the son of the petitioner Sri Yasa Akhilesh Reddy' s/o Yasa Anantha Reddy, on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)' ii) He shall co-operate with the Investigating Ofhcer by furnishing informationanddocumentsassoughtbyhiminconcluding investigation; iii) He shall not interfere either with investigation or influence the Investigating Officer in any manner; v) He shall not involve in any criminal acts which will prejudicial to fair and exPeditious trial; and vi) He shall not, directly or indirectly' make any inducement' threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to anY Police Ofhcer' vii) He shall deposit his passport with the I Additionat Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Karimnagar' viii) He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Couft concemed' Kt.,l Crl '. No 2279 of2025 6, Conse,;u,:nrly. pending miscellaneous petitions, i I a ny, in this Criminal Pet tion shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, /MRUE COPY// 5ecnoru oFFrcER \-/

2. 3 4.

7. 8. The 1"tA(jdiiional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar. (By Speed Post) The Statir>r -louse Officer, Kothapalli Police Station, Karimnagar District. The Regir;t.ar Vigilance, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The Superirtendent of Police, Karimnagar District. The Sup€riltendent District Prison, Karimnagar district Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State r)f Telangana at Hyderabad |OUTI One CC t) {iri S. Sharath Kumar, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Oopries kam,/DL HIGH GOL'RT DATED:26;10312025 ORDER CRLP.No.lt-279 of 2025 \ tiE Sr Al a i: (i' i -).) \-s ''..tt \\ IM $5 1lAl ,:<r,:,il DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION \>