Criminal Petition No. 10528 of 2025 · High Court · 2025

Order

Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.02 of 2025 of CID, TG, Police Station, Hyderabad, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2025, Sri Dharam Guruva Reddy, General Secretary of the Telangana Cricket Association, filed a complaint alleging that the President of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), Jagan Mohan Rao, had forged signatures to illegally gain entry into Sri Chakra Cricket Club and contest the HCA elections held in October 2023. He also alleged that Jagan Mohan Rao was ineligible to hold the presidency due to a conflict of interest. The Office Bearers of the Apex Council were accused of awarding catering contracts for major cricket events without following proper tender procedures, resulting in misappropriation of funds. Specific financial irregularities included misuse of in plumbing 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10528 of 2025 materials, air conditioners, electrical materials, banquet services, and clothing purchases amounting to crores of rupees, without maintaining proper records. Previous complaints had been lodged with various government agencies, but no adequate action was taken. The complainant requested the registration of a criminal case and legal action against the accused.

Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Siddharth Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the complaint was merely the outcome of rivalry between two cricket associations and was further fueled by the personal interests of the complainant in collusion with vested parties, aimed at damaging the reputation of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) and its office bearers without any substantive basis. He argued that the petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10528 of 2025 in the remand report dated 10.07.2025, and was being falsely implicated with malicious intent. He pointed out that the complaint originated from the complainant’s failed attempts to secure associate membership of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for the Telangana Cricket Association, which was vehemently opposed by the HCA and subsequently rejected by the BCCI in 2021. Following this rejection, the complainant allegedly began making baseless allegations against the petitioner and other office bearers, culminating in the present complaint.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the complaint was belated and malicious, particularly concerning alleged forgery relating to elections held in 2016, which had not been challenged by the purported aggrieved party, Sri C. Krishna Yadav, or the club itself for over ten years. He emphasized that election matters were internal to the HCA, a registered society, and did not concern the complainant and that the grievances about the constitution and election of clubs fell under internal dispute resolution mechanisms prescribed by the HCA Rules and Regulations, which the complainant 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10528 of 2025 failed to utilize. He submitted that the complainant, being an outsider and not a recognized body by either BCCI or the state government, lacked locus standi to file the complaint, which was filed with ulterior motives.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that with regard to the allegations of misappropriation of funds, that such grievances should have been raised by the affected parties or the BCCI, not by the complainant. Even if the allegations were assumed to be true, mere allocation of catering contracts without following tender processes did not constitute offences of fraud or misappropriation. He highlighted that the HCA’s auditors, empowered to scrutinize accounts, had not reported any irregularities, indicating the allegations were fabricated. He further contended that the petitioner, being a member of a society and not a public servant, could not be charged under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and the alleged offences carried punishments less than seven years, entitling the petitioner to bail under Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. He pointed out that the petitioner’s election as HCA President had never been legally challenged and that 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10528 of 2025 the allegations were merely attempts to criminalize internal administrative matters.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner had been suspended from HCA and had no influence over witnesses, negating any risk of tampering with evidence. He submitted that all material evidence had already been seized and the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, especially as the petitioner had been in custody for 40 days, including six days of police custody.

8. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stating that the society, such as the Hyderabad Cricket Association, was not to be treated as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, relying on the judgment in Zee Telefilms Ltd and another v. Union of India and others1. He further referred to Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1 (2005) 4 SCC 649 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10528 of 2025 and another2, to emphasize that bail should not be denied to economic offenders without proper justification, as it would violate the fundamental right under Article 21. In relation to the offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code concerning entrustment and breach of trust, he relied on State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal3. Further, State v. K.P. Jain4, where it was held that the complainant must establish a specific fiduciary relationship with the accused for Section 409 to apply. He also referred to State of Haryana v. Sarup Singh5, where the court held that in cases involving trusts and cooperative societies, official members can only be held culpable under Section 408 and not Section 409, as office bearers of cooperative societies were not public servants under Section 21 of the IPC, making Section 409 inapplicable. He further cited State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rashi Shah6, and D. Venkata Rao & Anr. v. State of AP7, reinforcing the proposition that the petitioner could not be treated as a public servant for the