The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order Dtd. 25-09-2024 passed by the lV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.4252 of 2024 and thereby permit the prosecution to arrest the Respondent/Accused No.12 for the purpose of further investigation and for filing appropriate report before the concerned Judicial Court in the interest of Justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner and Sri T.Santosh Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondent-accused No.12. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. ST JANA CRIMINAL PETITIoN No.6333 of 2Q! $ ORDER: This Criminal Petition is Iiled under iection 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short t NSS') by the learned Public Prosecutor seeking to set aside rlL, orcler dated

25.O9.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4252 of 2024 1t. the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, lear:r :d Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of petitio:r rr and Sri T. Santosh Singh, learned counsel for respondenl-ar :used No. 12.

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sr I mitted that respondent No.1 herein, who is arrayed as accus: I No.12, had fi1ed a petition for anticipatory bail before the tr al Court for the offences punishable .under Sections 3 18(4), 3 19(2), and 338 read with Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyayr Sanhita (for short, tsNSJ and Section 66(D) of the Informatir,r Technolory Act (for short, 'IT Act'). The trial Court dismi s ;ed the said petition and directed the Investigating Oflicer to r Chere to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Cou r - in Arnesh Z sl(s,J Ctl.P.No.6333 of2025 Kumar v. State of Biharl, by issuing notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that one of the alleged offences i.e., under Section 338 of BNS is punishable with imprlsonment exceeding seven years. Without recording any findings as to whether Section 338 of BNS is applicable to the case at hand, the trial Court directed the Investigating Officer to act under Section 35 of BNSS, which pertains to offences punishable with imprisonment below seven years. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the irnpugned order dated 25.09.2024 is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent filed a counter stating that no bail was granted by the trial Court and that the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed. Therefore, the State cannot seek to cancel an order that does not confer bail, making the present petition not Iegally maintainable and further submitted that the respondent had sent an SMS to the Investigating Of{icer on 2a.O9.2024, requesting issuance of notice under Section 35 of ,AIR 2014 SC 2756 3 SKs,J )tL-P-No.6333 o;2O25 BNSS and appeared accordingiy. However, tht, Inys51ia.1i.* Ofl-rcer did not proceed, due to police barr lobust cluty obligations and the absence of intent to arrest tlrr respondent There are no allegations that the respondent te:rpered with evidence, threatened u,itnesses, or attempted to i I scond.

6. In view of the submissions made by the le: -ned counsel for the petitioner and a perusal of the materia I ervailable on record, it is evident that the trial Court c i;missed the anticipatory bail petition and directed issuance ol notice under Section 35 of BNSS in terms of the judgme r . in Arnesh Kumar case (supra). However, one of the allegeri offences i.e., under Section 338 of BNS carries a punishm: rt exceecling seven years, and the trial Court did not recorc lny fir-rdings regarding its applicability to the respondent and hat the trial Court ought to have considered the gravity and e 1 plicabiliry of the alleged offences, particularly in relation to .(;r ction 338 of BNSS, before issuing directions under Sectior-r i5 of BNSS. Therefore, this Court is of the considered vi rv that the impugned order dated 25.O9.2024 passed in Cr . v4.P.No.4252 of 2024 by the lea-rned IV Additional Sess ons Judge, Hyderabad is liable to be set aside- ! t 1 i 4 SKS,J C'1.P.No.6333 of 2025

7. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is disposed of and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the anticipatory bait petition afresh after hearing both sides, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed - SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR --7 i/TRUE COPY// E TION OFFICER To, _E

1. TherAdditional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, Nampally. 2. The VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, TSCSB (TS Cyber Security Bureau (TSCSB)), Hyderabad.

4. One CC to Sri. T. Santosh Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. vJn /psl \q- l I l I i l I i l j i I I i I I I I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 I ORDER CRLP.No.6333 of 2025 ..4 ' l '. :. -.\ .\ '. ii i t:l i'ifi ? ."" DISPOSING OF THE CRIMTNAL PETITIC N. o.&' , ,, \{, -\6 {6'>