High Court · 2025

Smt. Jyothi Porika, Wo Late Bhoja, Aged about 52 Years, Obc. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Janagoan, FAC Commercial Tax Officer, Warangal Urban-lll Circle, Rio H.No.2-10-678, Teachers Colony, Hanamkonda, Warranghl, Telangana - 506 001 . ...PETITIONERYACCUSED OFFICER NO.1 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Near Govt. City College, Madina, Charminar Hyderabad - 500 066 RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE

2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Warangal- ...RESPONDENT NO.2/INVESTIGATING OFFICER Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned remand order in Crime No. 3/ACB-WRL/2020 01-09-2020, passed by the I ASJ for SPE and ACB Cum V Additional Chief Judge, at Hyderabad in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned remand order in Crime No. 3/ACB-WRL/2020 01-09-2020, passed by the I ASJ for SPE and ACB Cum V Additional Chief Judge, at Hyderabad in the interest of justice. -t1t6a!,\ iiffi€E'F-- This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lt/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. Vankina Allu And Partners, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri T Bala lVlohan Reddy (SC FOR ACB SPL PP TS) Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4263 of 2O2O ORDER: This petition is hled by the petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused no.1, questioning the Remand Order dated Ol.O9.2O2O, passed by the Prl.Spl.Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in Crime No.O3/ ACB-WRL I 2O2O.

2. The impugned remand orde r dated 0I .O9 .2O2O reads as follows "A.O.1 and A.O.2 are produced before me at 3:3O p.m. through PC.1128, WPC.2441, HG 1257 of ACB , Worangal. Before the production of accused bg ACB, M/ s.Vc.nkina, Aduocate & Partners aduocates filed their memo of appearance for AO.1 and informed me through the bench clerk that tteg will file writteh arguments and theg uant to oppose the remand of AO.1. Theg sent soft copg of uritten arryments to the official E-Mail. In uieut of the said objection Speciot P.P was inforuned to get readg to submit her arguments. I haue heard the learned counsel for AO. 1 Sri Midhun Kumar for AO.1 and Smt.Manogna, Special P.P through uideo call. Si Midhun Kumar opposed the remand of AO.1 on uaious grounds. He has submitted that AO.1 uho is uorking as DCTO tuith good salary ond- u.tho is due for promotion neuer demanded ong bibe as alleged in the Remand Case Diary. She could obtain an order for her promotion through Tibunal ond likelg to be promoted in this month, somebody tuho u.tanted to see tLe denial of Ler promotion must haue hotcLed a plan and created all these allegations. He has also submitted that the uerbatim of alleged. uoice recorded did not disclose that AO.1 demanded brtbe thot itself stnut that a false case has been foisted against AO.1. He ha.s also submitted tLnt the ACB authoities did not issue notice under section 41 of Cr.P.C. os required and as directed bg Hon'ble Supreme Court before the arrest of AO.1, but serued the 2 notice onlA afier her anrest. He hc.s also submitted that the grounds on uhich IO sought for remand of AO.1 does not exist and this court can direct AO.1 to attend before the court if her presence is required and absolutely there is no necessitg to order judicial custody of AO.1. He has also submitted that the ACB ofJicials dtd not serue all the documents on the basis of tuhich theA are asking Judictal Custody of AO. 1 and there is no pima facie case to remand AO.1 to judicial custodg. The learned Spectal P.P has submitted that at the stage of remand the court has to see tuhether there are grounds to remand the Acansed and if such grounds exists the court has got pouer to send AO.1 to Judicial Custodg and as could be seen from the entire record including FIR, Mediator Report and Verbatim of conuersation betueen AO.1 and A2 it is quite clear that AO.1 demanded Rs.S,OOO/ - for issuing clearance certificate to the defacto complainant and the same uas later reduced to Rs.3,OOO/- and he requested to pag Rs.2,O)O/- and that the VCD if pleged would shou.t the actual conuersation betueen A2 and defacto complainant, therebg there are grounds to remand the Accused Officer to Judicial Custodg. The leamed counsel for AO.1 hns added that the conuersation betueen A2 and defacto complainant maA not be a ground for sending AO.1 to jail. I haue pcLused FIR, RCD, Verbatim dated 26.O8.2020 behueen defacto complainant, AO.1, and A2. As per the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant dt.26.08.2o20 it is atleged that uhen he u.tent to AO.1 for clearance certificate, AO. 1 demanded Rs.S,OO0/ - and uhen he expressed his inabilitg to pag such amount AO.1 asked him to settle the issue through A2, and uhen he approoched A2, A2 infonned the defacto complainant that he has to pag the bribe for obtaining certif.cctte. As per the conuersation dt.26.O8.2020 it shouts tuhen he u-)ent to AO.1 she directed him to A2 and A2 informed him thot he can pag Rs.3,000/-. This is not the stage to go into the meits of the case. I am not supposed to decide at this stage u.thether reallg 42 u-tas asked to collect moneg from the defacto complainant by A.O.1. I am supposed to see uthether there are grounds to remand AO.1 and A2 to Judicial Custodg. Therefore, I am not inclined to .,..':..:,: 3 consider the request of counsel for AO-l to disbelieue the uersion in the aboue uerbatim. Euen if the said scipt is ignored still there is FIR utherein it is alleged that AO.1 demanded Rs.5,000/ - and later she asked him to settle the amount through A2. As per the record" IO has issued Sec.41 Cr.P.C- notice to both accused at 1730 hours i.e., before arrest. The ualidity or othentise of such notice mag not be a ground to reject the remand- I am satisfi.ed that there are grounds to remand both Accused to Judtcial Custody. I haue questioned AO.1 and A2 uhether theg uere subjected to ang harassment bA ACB olfictals for u-thich they did not comploin anA such harassment bg ACB officials. Therefore, AO.1 and A2 are remanded to Judtcial Custodg ttll 15.09.2020."

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned remand order dated OL.O9.2O2O on the ground that the copy ol the video recording, which was recorded by the ACB authorities, was not provided to her at the time of remand.

4. Once an accused is taken before a Court, the procedure to be followed is under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. Under the said provision, the Police have to provide the CD hle to the Court, and on the basis of the Court's satisfaction that it is a fit case for remand, orders have to be passed.

5. As seen from the order passed by the learned Special Judge, the CD file was placed before [he Court along with the relevant documents. Basing on the said CD hle placed before the Court, remand was ordered, after the learned Special Judge recorded his satisfaction for 4 sending the petitioner to judicial custody. The said order for remand is not in violation of Section i67 of Cr.P.C.

6. There are no grounds to set aside the Remand Order dated OL.O9.2O2O, passed by the Prl.Spl.Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Citlz Civil Court, Hyderabad in Crime No.O3/ACB WRL/2020. 7 . Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed To //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, ACB, Warangal Police Station, Warangal Distrcit. 3. One CC to tvl/s. Vankina Allu and Partners, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. T Bala A/ohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies S w1/gh YY HIGH COURT DATED: 0410412025 ORDER CRLP.No.4263 of 2020 i !ll 0 4 JUL ?025 O T * \ ( P \ , CRIMINAL PETITION !S DISMISSED o"odna ' k-,