The High Court · 2025

by Public Prosecutor, High Court of

2. Puranam Nivas, S/o. Puranam R tnalu, Horoscope, R/o.H.No.2-28, Jangal pet, Godavari, Aged about 19 years, Pinakadimi, Pedavagi, occ. West

3. Kinneara Sai, S/o, Kinnera Govin Horoscope, Rio.H.No2-28, Jangalapet District,

4. Earnala Vasu, S/o, Earnala Venkann Bapuji Nagar, Musheerabad. n/o Pedavagi, West Godavari araju, Aged about 30 years, occ. Pinakadimis Redavagi, West Godavari , Aged 40 years, occ. Horoscope, R/o, H.No.2-54, Jangalapet, Pinakadimi, 5 Puranam Naga Raju, S/o. P. Konda R/o.H.No.1-7-78, Jangalapet, Pinakad a, Aged 33 years, occ. Horoscope, i, Pedavagi, West Godavari ...RespondenUAccused No. 1 to 4 Petition under Section 528 of BN stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of be pleased to direct the X Additio Secunderabad to return the residual seize seized amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as ea Sessions Judge, Secunderbad ordered to and same was received and withdrawn by t praying that in the circumstances riminal Petition, the High Court may al Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, amount of Rs,8,40,000/- out of total ier the Honble Court VI Additional lease the amount of Rs.1'1 ,60,000/- e petitioner/de-facto, complainant This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V V S Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr. JithenderRao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JU TICE N.TUKARAMJI Griminal Petition No 3755 ot 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed un er Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (here nafter 'the BNSS'), challenging the order dated 21 .01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 207 of 2024, arising out of Crl.M.P. No. 3269 of 2024 in Crime No. 223 of 2024 of Gandhi Nagar Police Statio , Secunderabad, on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Ma strate, Secunderabad.

2. I have heard Mr. V.V.S. Satyan yana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veera alla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the responde No.1-State. The petitioner is the de facto co plainant.

3. 4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner/de facto complainant lodged a police report all ing that she had come across certain promotional posters on an lnsta ram account and, upon making contact, engaged the individuals behin the account to perlorm a puja for the improvement of her mother's he Ith. lnitially, she transferred an amount of Rs.5,000. However, she s later informed that the ritual could not be performed due to a sev re dosham (spiritual affliction) said to be affecting her mother. Subs quently, one of the individuals introduced an 'Aghora Guru,' wh upon further consultation, demanded substantial sums for perfo ng the necessary rituals I 2 NTR,J Cdp_37 55-2025 It is alleged that the petitioner was subjected to threats and coercion, including threats to her life, and was thereby induced to transfer a total sum of Rs.28,32,000 to the accused persons, both through bank transactions and in cash. Upon her complaint, and during the course of investigation, the police recovered Rs.20,00,000 from the possession of the accused and deposited the same before the Court. Whereupon, the petitioner filed an application seeking interim custody of the recovered amount. The trial court, however, dismissed the application, observing that ownership of the seized cash was unclear and that such determination ought to be made only during the trial. Challenging that dismissal, the petitioner filed a revision petition. The revisional court, upon examining the record, noted that there was clear documentary evidence establishing that the respondents had received Rs. 1 '1,60,000/- from the petitioner via RTGS transfers. The court found prima facie material supporting the petitioner's claim to that portion of the funds and accordingly, partly allowed the petition by directing that Rs.11,60,000/- be returned to her.

5. Aggrieved by this partial relief, the petitioner has preferred the present petition, contending that the entire seized amount should have been returned to her, as it was wrongfully obtained through deceit and coercion.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted tha: the petitioner had arranged the funds by pledging gold and disbursed the amount in 3 NTR,J Cdp_37 55-2025 cash to the accused. lt was conten ed that, as the Petitioner is presently burdened with accruing inte t on the pledged gold, the entire amount seized by the poltce oug t to have been released in her favour. Accordingly, learned counsel pr d for indulgence of the Court and appropriate relief .

7. Learned Additional Public Prose tor submitted that, based on clear documentary evidence showing bank transfers, the revisional Court had rightly considered and all d the petitioner's claim to that extent. As for the remaining portion o the amount, it was submitted that the same has been kePt in abeY ce pending completion of the criminal trial. Further pleaded that, the absence of conclusive material regarding the remaining amou t, the trial court's aPProach was reasonable and does not cause an interests. Nevertheless, in light of prejudice to the Petitioner's e petitioner's pleadings, the learned Prosecutor faidy submitted th t an appropriate order maY be passed as deemed fit.

8. I have Perused the materials n record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel'

9. The present Proceedings we initiated based on the Police report lodged by the petitioner. The p itioner specificallY claims that, under certain circumstances, she ha pledging gold and lost a total su borrowed certain amounts bY of Rs.28,32,000i-, of which Rs.1 1,60,000/- was transferred throug documented bank transactions, I : 4 NTR,J Ctlp 3755_2025 as duly noted by the courts below. The remaining amount, it is alleged, was paid in cash. Although the petitioner seeks to rely on receipts related to the ptedging of gold and other supporting documents, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, it would be inappropriate to arrive at a definitive concrusion that the seized cash constitutes the exact amount advanced by the petitioner particularly in the absence of any material on record indicating that such an amount was ever present in the petitioner's bank account. However, it is undisputed that no other person, apart from the petitioner, has come forward to claim ownership of the seized funds. '10. Having regard to the above circumstances, and considering the petitioner's plea of financial distress, this Court is of the considered opinion that, rather than retaining the physical cash in ctrurt custody, it would be appropriate to grant interim custody to the petitioner while safeguarding the interest of justice. Accordingly, this Court directs as follows: (a) The seized amount shalt be released to the petitioner on the condition that she executes a personal bond for Rs.12,00,000L and furnishes one solvent surety to the like sum, even by property security, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (b) Although the prosecution does not rely upon currency denominations or serial numbers, in order to prevent any future dispute or complication, the trial Court shall prepare a detailed panchanama of 5 NTR.J Cnp 3155 2025 the currency/cash to be released. The enomination and serial number of each note shall be recorded in t e presence of the petitioner, accused or their counsels and the rosecutor, under a mediator's report, for evidentiary purposes. (c) The grant of interim custody a d release of cash shall remain subject to the final adjudication reg rding the petitioner's claim of having paid the said amount to the acc (d) ln the event the proceedings ulti ately conclude in favour of the accused, the petitioner shall be und r an obligation to return the released amount along with interest t the rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date of release. 11 . Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed Pending miscellaneous appl ations, if any, shall stand closed To, I SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE CO Yil SE "H\i OFFICER

1. The Special Judge for Trial of Offences Vl Additional Sessions Judge Secunde 2. The Station House Officer, Gandhi Na 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Sta at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. one CC to tVlr. V V S SatYanaraYa 5. Two CD CoPies DUPSL CA- under S.Cs and STs(PoA) ActCum bad. r Police Station, Secunderbad. of Telangana, High Court Buildings' a, Advocate [OPUC] HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 ORDER CRLP.No.3755 of 2025 11 [uB 2U5 1 O5 r,4 y g rri:-. I ( j: ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( 1 + )) @