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 Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, Advocate for the Petitioner and the sri syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I a I ''-jG--=V ,/ 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREI NIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7235 of .>.025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section lg2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ,llNSS,) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused in Crime No.1g7 of 2025 on the hle of the P.S. Mahaboobnagar II Town, Mahaboobnagar District, registered for the offences punishable und:r Sections 406, 420 atd467 of the Indian penal Code, 1g60 (for short ,IpC,).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 2|-05_ZOZ5, the Senior Superintendent at the principal Civil Judge Court, Mahaboobnagar, lodged a written complaint at Mahaboobnagar_ll Town Police Station against the petitioner/Accused. This complaint was filed pursuant to directions issued by the princil;al Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, vide office order dated 05-05-2025, The complaint refers to disciplinary proceedings initiated throug;h Disciplinary Order No.1964, dated 29-06-2024, issued by the Hc,n,ble principal District and Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar. A regular departmental enquiry (Enq. No. l/2024) was commenced against the petitioner, Senjor Superintendent, Special Sessions Court_cum_Il 2 Additional District and Sessions Court, Mahaboobnagar (currently under suspension), for alleged gross irregularities in maintaining the PD/CCD Account of the principal Senior Civil Judge,s Court, Mahaboobnagar, during his tenure from 20lg to September 2020. Smt.V.Sarada Devi, Special Judge for trial of cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I989-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted her report, finding Artictes of Charge Nos.l to 4 proved against the charged employee. Additionally, it was found that the accused forged the signature of the presiding Officer (pW4) on various docket orders. The report concluded that the accused exhibited gross misconduct, irregularities, and omissions in account maintenance, leading to confusion and complications in adjudicating cheque petitions filed before the principal Senior Civil Judge,s Court. The findings also disclosed acts amounting to criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, and forgery. The report further indicated the possibility that others may have aided in the commission of these offences. Basing on the same, present crime was registered. 3

3. Heard Mr.Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned \dditional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was fatsely intplicated in the above crime. He lurther submitted that even according to the allegations made rn the complaint, there are no specific altegations against the petitioner that he misappropriated certain amounts and forged the signatures ol the judicial officers, hence the ingredients of Sections 406, 420 and 467 of IPC are no{ attrtcred against the I I I I petitioner. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged incident took place in the year 2018 to 2020, whereas the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint on21.05.2025, without assigning any reasons for tlre long delay. He further submitted that the Department initiated Dcpiulrnental Enquiry and dismissed the petitioner from service through proceedings dated

19.05.2025. The entire records are within the custody of the department only and hence, question of intet f'ering with the investigation or influencing the witnesses by the p,;titioner does not arise. He fufther submitted that the petitioner is agt:r1 about 61 years 4 ,.1!=- ' jj:'saat- and suffering with health problems and he is not having any other criminal antecedents. He further submitted that the petitioner shall abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court, and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed grave offences and misappropriated substantial amounts of money while discharging his official duties. As a Senior Superintendent, he made excess payments amounting to Rs.23,69,500/-, and failed to provide details regarding paymenrs totaling Rs.2,65,6291-. He has also allegedty forged the signatures of judiciat officers. He further submitted that the Department, after conducting a detailed enquiry, came to know that the petitioner had misappropriated substantial amounts, as revealed in the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, pursuant to the said enquiry report, and the proceedings initiated by the Disciplinary Authority dated 19.05.2025, are in accordance with law. He further submitted that the investigation is under progress and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail at this stage, he may tamper with the ;]E= -.... , , }/ / 5 evidence and may threaten the witnesses, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective parlies and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner while wor king as Senior Superintendent, Special Sessions Court-cum-ll Ad ditional District and Sessions Court, Mahaboobnagar, committed several irregularities. The record further reveals that he Department l I initiated disciplinary proceedings and appointed an B,nquiry Officer, who, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitterd his report on

09.04.2025. Pursuant to the said report, the Disciplinary Authority, after following due procedure, dismissed the petitioner from service by Order No.27l2023lAdmnlDis.No.l606, dated 19.05.2025. In the said order, it is specifically recorded that the petitioner made excess payments amounting to Rs. 23,69,500/- and failed tc, provide detaits regarding palments totaling Rs. 2,65,6291-. Furtherrore, there is a serious allegation against the petitioner that he forged the signatures ofjudicial ofhcers. Even according to the learned ACditional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is under progress 6

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscelianeous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed , To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SE Jhdo-. FFICER

1. The lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahabubnagar. 2. The Station House Officer, Mahabubnag-r-ll Town police Station, Mahabubnagar District. Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL {M HIGH COURT DATED:2510612025 'i t-i E (' 10 sEr 205 ($ : \l * ORDER CRLP.No.7235 ot 2025 i I THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED (L' 2t d