The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner and Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Sole Respondent. Criminal Petition No.4749 ot 2024 Between: lle S_talg of Telangana,. through the Station House Officer, Varni P.S., rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hydera6ad - 500066. ... Petitioner/Respondent AND Md Muql[a1 S/o. I\/ohiddin -Sab, H. No, 1 -77, Tumma rapatte virrage z"arasanga,il fiLiii ot.tri"t Aged about 26 years, Occ. Business R/o ... RespondenUAccused Petition under section 43g(2) of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminai petition, the High court may be pleased to cancer the ntrcipatory oait gra;Gd to the RespondenuAccused vide Orders dated 22-2-2OZa, passed OV Bodhan, in Crl.M.p.No .l 2 of 2024 tn Cr.No.3+ of 2024 "ttre V Additionai b;;;;;;':;;;", ^a This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perus,ng the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri syed yasar Mamoon' Additionar pubric prosecutor for the petitioner and sri somavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Sole Respondent. Criminal Petition No.4756 ot 2024 Between: The State of Telanqana. through the .station House Officer, Varnr p.S., rep. bv Theopr.rbric prosecitor, High dourt-roi th"'ai;t"""iidrrrgl"r.'iJy;;r;#il AND 'L Syed Maqsood, S/o R/o. H. No.2-4611 , Nizamabad District 2. Syed Waseem, S/o. R/o. H.No.4-2, Wadd District. ... Petitioner/Respondent ,iL11Ir^Fo.:b. Ased^about 48 years, Occ: Business, vvaooepa[y colony, Satyanarayana puram, Varni, Syed Moinuddin, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, epa I ly C oton y, Satyain a raya na pr ri., V, ir",,"f.f [r, jL"ro ...RespondenUAccused No..l & 2 Petition under Section 43^g(2) of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminai petition, the High court may be pleased to cancer the .anticipatory oair grinted to the Respondents/Accused No 1 and 2 vide orders d.ated 22 2:2oza prs.e; ov the V Additionar sessions Judge, Bodhan in Crt.M p No.l 1of 2024 in bi.No.SS orZOZ+ This petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri syed yasar Mamoon, Additionar pubric prosecutor for thl petitioner and sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Respondents. Criminal Petition No.4769 ot 2O24 Between: The State of Telangana, throu The Public Prosecutor, High 500066. gh the Station House Officer, Varni P.S., rep. by Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad - ... Petitioner/Respondent AND Syed Maqsood, S/o. Syed Mahaboob, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-46l1, Waddepally Colony, Satyanarayana Puram, Varni, Nizamabad District. ... RespondenUAccused Petitlon under Section a39Q) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent/Accused vide Orders daied 22-2-2024 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan in Crl.M.P.No.1O ot 2024 in Cr.No.32 of 2024. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner and Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4748, 4749,4756 &,4769 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed by the public Prosecutor to cancel the anticipatory bail to the respondents/ accused, dated 22.O2.2024 in Crl.M.p.No.13 of 2024 in Crime No.35 of 2024, Crl.M.p.No. 12 ot 2024 in Crime No.34 of 2024, Crl.M.P.No. I I of 2024 in Crime No.33 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No. 1O of 2024 in Crime No.32 of 2024, respectively, by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

2. Heard Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf o[ the pe ti rioner- S tate as well as Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/ accused in alt the CASCS

3. Learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the accused approached the trial Court and obtained anticipatory bail on 22.02.2024. He further submitted that the Station House Ofhcer challengecl this order, but it was dismissed on Crl.P.Nos.474a of 2024 and batch -

19.O3.2O24. He contended that the anticipatory bail should not have been granted as the investigation is ongoing and the presence of the accused is necessary for further investigation, especially since they are suspected of misappropriating over Rs.S crores of public funds. Therefore, he prayed the Court to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by this Court by allowing this Criminal Petitions. 4 . In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'blc Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anrr, wherein in paragraph Nos.31, 32 and 33, it is held as lollows C. Cancellation of bail

31. Thrs Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession o[ bail during trial- Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation ol bail {which was already granted).

32. A two Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, 12022 Livelaw (5c) 562 3 sKs,J Crl.P.[os.4748 of 2024 and batch (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC lcr.) 2371 laid dorvn the grounds for cancellation of bail which are: (i) interference or attempt to interfere with the (tue cour se of administration ofjustice: (ii) cvasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice; (iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in an1' manner; (iv) possibility of the accused absconding; (v) likelihood oflactual misuse of bail; (vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses.

33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of l)ail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainll/ has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supenening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled;

33. 1. Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial natrrre and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.

33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks tlre influential position of the accused in comparison ro the victim of abuse or the witnesses especiallv when there rs prima facie misuse of position and ponr:r over the victim. 4 SKS'J Crl.P.Nos.474E of 2024 snd batch

33.3. Where thc past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bait.

33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.

33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the order grantrng bait thereby causing prejudice to justice.

33.7. When the order granting bail is apparentty whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.

33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropnate rn the first place given the ven' serious nature of the charges against the accuscd which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be lustified.:"

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there are no grounds to cancel the bail granted by the trial Court and there are no allegations against the accused to show that they violated the conditions imposed by the trial Court. He further submitted that the accused are co- operating with the Invcstigating Officer, furthermore, the cases were registered basing on the false allegations. Therefore, he prayeci the Court to dismiss the criminal petitions. cit-P-Nos.4748 of 2024 afld batch In the light of the submissions made b1' bot h the 6. learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitions fail to demonstrate that theaccusedbreachedtheconditionssetbythetrialcourt'The Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav (supra)' which emphasizes that bail can be revoked if the granting Court considers irrelevant material or ignores relevant information' However, this ground is not applicable in the present cases' as the trial court carefully evaluated the petitions and the submissions ol the Public Prosecutor' Furthermore ' there is no evidence that the accused has intimidated witnesses' who are primarily official witnesses, or has a prior criminal record' Therefore, these criminal petitions lack merit anrl the same are liable to be dismissed' 7 Accordingly, these criminal petitions are dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending' shall stand closed .DF:SP+'XiIIYIIA 7 t' sEcrloN oFFtcER //TRUE COPY/' To,

1. The V Additional Sessions Judge' Bodhan Station' Nizamabad District' 2. The Station Hou'" Otti""'' U""n' Hish court ror the state or relansana at 'o""" ' lY8i,r?5" tBt?i'"" ''o'"""o'' 4. One CC to Srl Somavarapu Satyanarayana' Advocate IOPUCI 5, Two CD CoPtes ($' kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 ,,.. 1HE S IA I6 COMMON ORDER t CRLP.Nos.4748,4749,4756 & 4769 ot 202 a- o o o. ( f 20 Juil z0 : I +t D ,rgo;-rq,,-r<'1 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ( p-- Tfi"f E4**+,.,...*-