The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor Through Central Bureau of Investigation, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad .Respondent / Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order daled 0410312025 in partial only in Crl.MP 34 of 2025 in CC No 't3 gT 2013 on file of the Ld. Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad., also permit the petitioner to travel to NOUAKACHOTT, MAURITONIA for a period of one year from 1OlO3l2O25 lo 0910312026 with any condition to be present before the Trial Court as and when directed to appear. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3767 OF 2025 Between: Balagouni Balraj Goud, S/o. B. Lingamayya Goud, Age-57 Years, Occ: Business, Rlio. H.No.B-2-293i82lALi4'l , Ashwni Layout, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033 Occ- Business ...Petitioner / Accused No.2 AND The State )l I (, engana, Represented by Special Publi': Prosec 'ttor Through Central Bureitr- :r lnvestigatlon, High Court at Hyderabad, tlyderabad ,.Respondent i ComPlainant Petition uncer slection 528 of BNSS praying that in he r)ircumstances stated in the Mernora t clum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the riigh Court may be pleased to quash l.re )-der dated 04.03.2025 in partial only in crlMF' 34 of 2025 in cc No 13 of 20",3 on file of the Ld. Prl. Special Judge for tlBl 3asr,:s, Hyderabad to the extent o1 1rn36rr,ing heavy surety amount of Rs 5,00 000/- wil.h two surities praying to modifrr t'te rrder to the extent of Rs 1,00,000/- with two surities. This Petitio't : lming on for hearing, upon perusing thr: [,4t:morandum of Grounds of Crim na Petition and upon hearing the argunrent'; of Sri V'R Machavaram, A,lvrrcr te for the Petitioner and the T. Srulan l(umar Reddy Spl. P.P. for CBI (TG/A P tn behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the tollowing Common Order:' I, THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3763 and 3767 ot 2025 COMMON ORDER: These petitions are filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the order, dated 04.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.34 of 2025 in C.C.No'|3 of 2013 on the file of learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBI appearing for respondent.

3. The petitioner is accused No.2 before the trial Court. He filed petition under Section 439 (1) (b) r/w. 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission for visiting Nouakchott, Mauritonia, in connection with his business related works, for a period of one year i.e., from '10.03.2025 to 09.03.2026. The Cou( below, having considered the merits, partly allowed the petition, permitting the petitioner/accused No.2 to travel for a period of three (03) months i.e., from 10.03.2025 to 09.06.2025 and for returning the passport, on the condition that he has to execute a personal bond for Rs.5,00,0001 with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court.

4. The petitioner, dissatisfied by the period allowed for travelling abroad filed Crl.P.No.3763 of 2025 and aggrieved by the surety amount filed another Criminal petition i.e., Crl.P.No.3767 ot 2025 2 \

5. Learnerl crl lnsel for the petitioner would submit thilt even earlier, the pet tio tr-'r was permitted to travel abroad' considr'lring his plea of busines;s related works abroad Even in the order it lras been remarked that th: petitioner had complied the conditions imposed earlier, as such ;'anted leave to visit abroad' However' against the prayer for grarrtitr 7 one year period' without reason restrictecl to three months. That rrfrittt, on earlier occasions' the Court har; directed for with two surr:)ties and execution of 1:,er ;rlnal bond for Rs"l '00'0001 without rationaler personal bond was enhanced to Rs 5 00'(-t00l with two sureties;" in tr:tal of Rs'10'00'0001 is causing severe hardship' Thus, prayed fc r ntervention and to extend his pertod ')f vi sit and to reduce the surel" amount'

6. Learne,l S tanding Counsel for the CBI would fairly submit that earlier,ontwc::casions,petitionerhassoughtpermissionl'orvisiting the other CoLrn':ty Nouakchott and the same was positively r:'onsidered by the Court lrr the first occasion' the petitioner was pr:rmi'Ied for 15 days and in tl'r' second occasion three months Now ther petitioner came up with th: application for one year to stay abroac Hcrwever' the trial Court, crlrtr;idering the stage of the proceedings rightl'1r restricted theperiodolvsiiforthreemonthsandnon-availabilityr:fthl-'petitioner .1 hat apart' longer lterr ir>d may affect the trial proceerjing; . considering th,: permitted period in the petition' the Court was -) reasonable in fixing the surety amount at Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition

7. I have rightly considered the submissions and perused the materials placed on record L Admittedly, the calendar case proceedings are at the stage of I trial and there is a direction of stay of further proceedings by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the fact remains that the trial proceedings would commence any time, subject to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ln that situation, granting a longer.period to remain in other Countries would certainly affect the proceedings and may cause prejudice to the interests of the other stakeholders of the proceedings. ln this view granting three months period for visiting the other Country, in the light of earlier conduct of the petitioner is found justified and this Court finds no reason to interfere with this finding recorded by the Court below.

9. However, considering the pleading of the petitioner that Rs.5,00,0001 with two sureties is causing hardship and the uncontradicted assertion as to the surety amount imposed earlier limiting the surety to one, is found proper and meet the situation' Accordingly, condition No.1 of the impugned order shall stand modified and rest of the impugned order shall hold good. 4 1 I A lo.Accor,JinglrCrl'P.No.3T6Tof2025ispartlyallllwedby modifying the stilrulation of "two sureties" with "one surety" in condition No.1 of the mpu'lred order and Crl P No 3763 of 20"15 is dis'nissed' Miscerllane c us petitions' pending if any' shall stanc clori;ed sd/'P PADMA\I+RII,EE"-RX / ,TTRUE COPY'I Brelsrrne SEOTION OFFICER To,

1. The Princ;ipe I Special Judge for CBI Cases' Hyderabad' I i::j:ilij *:m;:"::;:::x":l"lj.''"'' 4. Two CD ilo' ries \dv'ca'1e'loPucr VC/PSL \ I HIGH COUR-i. DATED:1910'.311t025 GOMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.37ti3 and 3767 of 2025 I \( ,'-' -i ar '. a 2tJUN ztE ot: aI PARTLY Al-h I-OWED THE CRLP NO'376i7 OF 2025 AND DISMISSINGi THE CRLP NO.3763 OF 20'25 b ' ---Yr\,'' 6Aa'