Souza and others v. Stephen vs Gomes and another

Order

Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.2 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.11099 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 M. Sharath Chandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court passed the impugned orders without considering the violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, though specific issues were raised, and the respondent gave contradictory versions about the date, time, and place of arrest, yet the petitioner was remanded without verifying the same and that the investigation was conducted under the repealed Cr.P.C even though the complaint was registered 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11099 of 2025 on 09.06.2025 after BNSS came into force, which violated the petitioner’s right to life and liberty. He also submitted that the DGP’s circular was not followed, that grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing either to the petitioner or to his family, and that reasons for arrest or remand reports could not substitute written grounds.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the trial Court wrongly observed that procedural lapses could not stop investigation, whereas such lapses had a direct bearing on constitutional rights and that the petitioner was arrested under a non-existing provision of Cr.P.C instead of BNSS, and though these violations were raised, the trial Court ignored them. He further submitted that after police custody ended on 14.07.2025, investigation was completed, all evidence was documentary, and there was no scope for tampering or influencing witnesses. He further submitted that the allegation of mismanagement of HCA funds was disputed by the BCCI in W.P.No.27896 of 2024, showing that no public or economic offence was involved, and also that the complainant had no locus as 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11099 of 2025 only members of the society could file such a complaint as per law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, being on the same footing as accused Nos.3 and 4 who were already granted bail, was entitled to bail on grounds of parity, and even accused facing more serious charges were granted bail and that the petitioner was a senior citizen suffering from chronic hypertension, cardiac and cerebral problems, requiring immediate specialized treatment. He further contended that the petitioner, as Secretary of HCA, was not a public servant or agent and hence Section 409 IPC was not applicable; other alleged offences were below seven years and that BCCI, which funds HCA, never filed any complaint against the petitioner, and the allegation that he was not competent to be Secretary was already rejected by BCCI in 2021 by a speaking order. He further submitted that Rule 40 of HCA requires any complaint of misappropriation to be made before the Ombudsman, which was not followed. 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11099 of 2025

7. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in Robert John D’Souza and others v. Stephen v. Gomes and another1, Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another3, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)4, Arun Kumar v. The State of Karnataka5, Deepu and others v. State of UP and others6, Sandeep Kumar v. State7, Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation8, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another9, Zee Telefilms Ltd and another v. Union of India and another10. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner