Heard Mr v. Sunil Kumar, leamed

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition and upon hearing.the arguments of Sri VUTHPALA SUNIL KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Srinivas Kapatia, the Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER , I l ! I i I i t ! I , :l 7 w crlp 5483 2025 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEE ! TAPAKA - CRTMINA L PETITION No.5483 of 202 ORDER: 'fhe petitioner is accused No.6 in C.C.No.3 of 2021 on the hle of I Additional Speciat Judge for CllI Cases, at Hyderabad. rl r the complaint made by the Chief Manager of Union Bank of India, Ka'i nnagar Branch, stating that accused No.l l-ras illegally taken out funds to t .e tune of Rs.12 Crores fiorn the Currency Chest of the Bank, and emtt zzled the funds conspiring with other accused, including the petitionel l:rein, a case in Rc.No.04/20 l9-CBliHyderabad, was registered by the respondent-CBl against all the accused. The petitioner herein, who is saiC to be in Dubai, was declared to be an absconder as he did not appear des: te the summons issued by the trial Courl, and the trial Courl issued Nor.r'1 ailable warrants (NBW) against the petitioner/accused No.6 vide Order 11 ted 08.07.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition, in Crl.M.P.No.85 Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking recall of the said Order I contending that the petitioner teft lndia for Dubai on t 09.08.2017 and later on got a resident visa, and J Rc.No.04/2019-CBI/Hyderabad, was registered on l therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner absconded I registered, and that he started business in Dubai and that lLi is Flat No.ll2, InJinity Building, Al Safo-2' Sheikh Zat United Arab Emirates. and therefore it is his contention the to be serwed notices on his last known address and theref-c r CBI declaring him as absconder is not in accordance witlr contention before the trial Cour-t, represented through his < willing to surrender himself before the Court tkough l'i 7 of2024, under tted 08.07.2024, tourist visa on at the case in

5.03.2019, and ter the case was i present address d Road, Dubai, - the accused has r the respondent- aw. It is also his :unsel, that he is .eo-conferencing \ \ I 4 I 2 crlp 5483 2025 NBK, J + and that whenever he is able to come to India he would come and that he has instructed his lauyers to fully pafiicipate in the proceedings and not take any adjoumment on any ground. It is also his contention that he will continue to join the Court proceedings through video-conference and that there is a traveL ban on him, and as soon as the ban is lifted, he will appear in person. The trial Court, by the irnpugned Order dated 28.08.2024, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this criminal petition.

2. Heard Mr. V. Sunil Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, leamed Special Public Prosecutor appearing lor respondent-CentraI Bureau of Investigation. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner essentially contends that there are

3. exemptions and privileges given to the accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner has inabitity to appear in pelson before the trial Court and.the petitioner has undertaken to surender by video conferencing as per Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is also contended that in the charge sheet, the respondenVcomplainant-police clearly mentioned fhe address, including the Dubai address of the petitioner and his mobile numbers and phone numbers, and therefore the act of declaring the petitioner as an "absconder" is illegal. It is also contended that the petitioner has filed a petition in Crl.P.No.l025 of 2025 before this Court seeking to quash the FIR against the petitioner and the said petition is pending. Leamed counsel therefore prays to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court and to recall the NBWs issued against the petitioner. Leamed Special Public Prosecutor, based on the counter affrdavit, ! contends that the petitioner is an accused in Rc.No.04/20 19-CBI/llyderabad registered on the complaint of the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, 3 crlp_5483,2025 NBK, J Karimnagar, alleging embezzlement of Rs. i 2.23 crores f 'r m the Currency Chest of the said bank. Alter completion of investigation, r flled in C.C.No.3/2021, presently pending before the triai - 'harge sheet was )urt, at the stage of consideration of chargcs. I{orvever, due to the non-exe( I Bailabl e Warrant (N'B W) against petitioner/accused No. l.' not proceed further. causing undue delay and hardship to c t tion of the Non- , the case could rer accused. [t is also contended that the petitioner is Proprietor ofM/s Pisc: , Exim Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, and he has been absconding even prior to registr He conspired with Al, Mr. Akula Muniah Suresh Kumr Curency Chest, Union Bank of India, Karirnnagar, to m s crores fiom the Currency Chest. In pursuance of th,: petitioner/Accused No.6 proposed to collect Rs.5 crort'l tion of the case. , then Manager, rppropriate Rs.5 conspiracy, the in cash with a promise to transf-er the same through RTGS along with a . 0o% commission for A I . A1, betieving the representation, handed over Rs 5 crores in cash through a ha',r,ala agent to the petitioner, who subsequentJl amount and absconded abroad without making any RI-(.i accused No.6 and accused No. 1 cornmitted offences 1 Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 468, 47 l, and 4774 IPC for cr I siphoned offthe I transfer. Thus, :nishable under rinal conspiracy, cheating, breach of tmst, forgery, and falsification of acc<,t nts.

4.1 lt is also contended that the Trial Court rig.r ly observed that the petitioner's appearance cannot be ensured as he limself admitted uncertainty regarding lris travel from Dubai to IndirL. Exemptions or privileges are granted based on the genuineness of the a,: used: which can be decided only after considering the rnerits. The petiti r ter's reliance on Section 530 of the BNSS is misconceived since the case \/ s instituted prior to the BNSS notification, and as per Section 533(2)tt ) of the BNSS, proceedings must continue under the CrPC. Moreover, ( ven Section 530 \. 4 crlp_5483_202S NBK, J does not exempt the accused from appearing before the court upon service of summons. The trial Cour1, in its order, clearly noted that the petitioner has no definite intention to appear in person and cannot dictate that the entire trial be conducted through video conferencing, particularly when he failed to provide any valid reason or particulars regarding alleged travel iestrictions by the Dubai authorities. The physical appearance of the accused during trial and judgment is essential, which the petitioner failed to ensure. Despite several notices dated 17.08.2019, 03.09.2019, 24.10.2019, and

26.10.2019, he did not cooperate with the investigation, leading to issuance of an NB W. Repeated e lforts to contact him through electronic means also failed, demonstrating that he is deliberately evading the judicial process.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the petitioner is an accused who allegedly conspired with other accused in embezzlement of funds illegally taken out from the currency chest of the respondent-Union Bank. Further, the amendments under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not applicable to the cases instituted before the coming into force of BNS, and those cases would be govemed by the provisions of Cr.P.C.

5.1 Further, it is relevant to note that the facility of video conferencing for conducting of Court proceedings was introduced to speed- up the Court process, by avoiding the difficulties in making representation by the counsel/or their parties, and the video conferencing facility is not an alternative to surendering before the Court, and it is beyond any stretch of imagination as to how one could "surrender" by video conferencing. Furthermore, the very undertaking given by the petitioner, in the proceedings conducted by the trial Court by video conferencing, is that he would come to India whenever the "travel ban" is lifted on him, and he has I I 1 I I i I I I i i I i i : : I I I i ! i t := i -d)*-i-.€!F.rF-"'ry. .:. ;' 5 crlp_5483_2025 NBK, J not produced any material documents with regard to tlrr: z lcged travel ban imposed on him by the government authorities in Dubai ,nd the nature of travel ban and why it came to be imposed on him; there 11'the petitioner failed to convince the tlial Court of the alleged impedimert Lo him to appear before the tlial Court and submit to the judicial process. It is also appropriate to refer to paragraphs 32 and -:' olthe impugned

6. Order ol the trial Court, relevant portion of which read as bllows: ri, how can there is no t and when t Dttbai on ' .rlarted his 'ioner went on the part tner herein ng of lndia rsk the CBI Therefore, 'ltsconding. tr 2017, he vas not in vear 2019. " 32. The petitioner pointed out thot when he is in Du\ tlte prosecution scrve the sununons in the lctcal addres; ntctterial produced before tlrc Court that when he le/i In.l lrc reached Dubai. ,4s per his own application, he ven, Tourist VISA, thereafter lrc obtained Residence VISA tut, busines.s in Dubai. Nobody knows that whether lhe pet to Dubai or he is in absconding in lndia. Nothing u'roti1 o/'CBI for not .serving summons to the address o{'petia' in Dubai. When the y have no knot,ledge about the leuv b),the accused and he is stoying in Dubai, how can lr to serve the summons lo the address mentioned in Dub,t they ltave rightly filed charge sheet by showing him as He has not Jiled single docurnent to show that in tlu: t went to Duboi. Therefore, he cannot soy that tt, hen It India, lnw can CBI register the case agttinst hint irt tl t Moreover, all the.te facts are triable issues..... ,, it is c lear 34. In the instant case, from the contents of the petitio that the petitioner is not intended to appear belo' the court personally. IIe clearly stated thot whenever lte is ab,t lo come lo 'er to fully India, he will come and lte has instructed his /ctt:. participate in the Ttroceeding:r ... Therefore, the peti.,i )ner cannot insist this court to conduct the trial through l\ i.e.. more nce of his particularf, the tolal trial- He is not giving assu', ,nd the first oppearance even at the time of Section 3 I 3 of Cr.PC'.. id not state examination under Section 240 of Cr.PC. Further, he t As per the wlnt was the reason for not coming back to India. petition, it appears that the reslriclion orders are pas;' d by Dubai Government against the accused from moving from I),t 'oi tu India. The petitioner is notfair and not giving the particularr 2f the cases has passed or the circumstances for which the Dubai Governmett juch orders Infact, lhe conduct of applicant is olso v,'., \) necessary 5 crlp_5483_2025 NB(, J to be looked into while disposing the petition under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not fair and he is not intended to disclose all the facts before this court. The memo filed by one G. Raghu Chandra, Advocate on 25.07.2024 before this court shows that A6 is in Dubai ond the Governmenl of Dubai banned him from lravelling outs ide Duhai due to sonrc matters pending in Dubai, clearly shot,s that it is nol possible .for lhis court to secure his presence.'

7. Considering the impugned Order passed by the trial Court, and also the respective contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Order is a well-reasoned order and the same does not require interference.

8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L.LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR \_v- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad 2. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir 3. Two CCs to the SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad

4. One CC to SRI VUTHPALA SUNIL KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies (ouT) TPK/PSL lWr,. I I i ! I I I I I .' j i i I ! I i ! i i i i I i I I I I I I I I j I I I i i I i I I I I i : a .| ) HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 /' \ t.'- \, :, \. n I Lrt iU$ ..,/ / .';t7 ORDER CRLP.No.5483 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMI!;SED 1 \nt"u" i\ A, 4