The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr P.C R/w. 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [t/emorandum of Grounds of Cnminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to quash the Impugned order dated 18 -09-2025 passed in Crimrnal Miscellaneous Petition (CRL.[/P) No.3401 of 2025 in EC\R|HYZOl4212022 oo the file of Sessions Judge, Hyderabad l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petrtaon under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petrtron. the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Impugned order dated 18-09-2025 passed rn Crrminal Miscellaneous Petition (CRL.MP) No 34Ol of 2025 in EClRlHYZOl4212022 on the file of Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. pendrng disposal of the Crrminal Petition. This Petition coming on {or hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Ra.1a Sripathi Rao, Advocate, Senior Counsel Representrng Sri DILEEP KUMAR BOI\ilMENA, Advocate for the Petitroner and the Sri Narender Naik, Stading Counsel for the Drrectorate of Enforcement for the Respondent The Court made tt',e following: ORDER . :,.,:, THE HON.BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DI:\/I EADA CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.12465 ot 2o',tt; ORDER: .fhrs crimin:ll petiticn is filed seeking to quash tre order dated 18 i:9 2425 pass€,d in crl M.p No.3401 of 2025 n ECI?.lHyZot4Zl 2022 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabao 2 Heard [,,4 r P Rala Sripathr Rao, learnecj ljenior Cor,rnsel representing l\lr' Dileep Kumar Bommena, learned cor nsel on record for the petition,-.r and [,4r. Narender Naik, learned S anding CoLrnsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, representing the re,spondent

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sr-rl_ mrtted that ihe date of offence fails prior to the amendment of Cr. p I r e. the crirne nunrber rtself denotes that it occurred in zoz2 and thrrs; provisrons of Cr.P.C'. are not epplrcable and recourse cannot fe taken to the Bha.atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (,for short Bl{SS,). He furlher submitt,:d that as per Seciion 167 (2) Cr P C . the police custcdy can be granted onry during the period of first f 'teen rJays and not ihereafter. -,'re petitioner was remanded to juclicial custody on 26.08.2025 till rl9 09 2025, the first remand period g.t completed lt , means to say the first fifteen days is over and thus, th: police custody cannot be granted after the said period. He further submitted that ) t. '1 g 2 Cd P. No.12465 of Crl.tvl.P No.3401 oI 2025 was filed before the trial court seeking police custody of the petitioner on 09 09 2025 i'e on completion of the firstremandperiodandthetrialcourthasgrantedpolicecustodyfol- 10 days which is to begin from 20.092025 lo 29.092025 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that granting of police custody after completion of first 15 days is against the principle laid down in Central Bureau of lnvestigation v' Anupam J' Kulkarnil. He, therefore, prayed to quash the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge 4,ThelearnedStandingCounselfortherespondenthas submitted that Section 167 Cr'P C ' is not applicable to the present case and that the procedure under BNSS has to be applied and section 187 of BNSS clearly envisages that the total period of 15 days custody can be given to the police and it does not limit the provision to give police custody only to the first period of 15 days of remand He relied upon the .iudgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V' Senthit Balaji v. State, represented by Deputy Director and others2 contending that even under Section 167(2) Cr'P C ' police custody can be granted after the first fifteen days of remand '

5. Perused the record ' (1991) J scc lll I (202{) l scc 5l 3 ETD,J ('11.P. llo 12465 of 2025 I 6 lt r; borne out from the record that the p-"titioner is the accused No.4 anC he is alleged to be the manag erial person of l\4/s Sahitr Infratec Ventures lndia private Limited (her: nafter referred to as 'Companv') itnd was a Director of the said Company liom 2018 to 2020 and in the said capacity. he got actively involver in the sare of properties of customers of Sahiti Group on the prt:text of sale of inventory without any necessary permissions and a's isted accused No 1 B Lakshnrrn;arayana in coliection of funds by sale of inventory rn the illegally iaunched projects of the said Contpa.ry T.hus, he cheated the ;nnocent pubric and mis-appropriated the sarc anrounts and gained i,vrongfullv to a tune of Rs.72,B.l ,gB,OOO/_ Thus, he is alleged to have irrvolved in acquisition, possession. concealment of proceeds of crirne and thus, he is facing allegations trrder Section 3 read with 4 of the Prevention of Money LaunderinJy Act, 2002 (for short'PlvlL Act') 7 Ser:ticn 167(2) o'f Cr p.C. is extracted herreLrnder for the sake of convenience "167. Procerlure when investigation cannot be comltleted in twe nty-fo u r hours. (1 ) xxx (2) The l\,4agistrate to whom an accused perrson is forwardecj under this section may, whether he has cr has not Jurisdiction to try the case. from time to time aufttcnse the detention of the accused in such custody as such [4tgrstrate 4 crt.p. uo:znas o7*i- thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for tnal. and considers further detention unnecessary he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such juflsdiction. Provided that - (a) the [\ilagistrate n]ay authoflse the detention of the accused person, otherwrse ihan rn the custody of the police, beyond the perrod of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for dorng so, but no lvlagistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceed ing. - (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days. where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the exprry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisrons of Chapter XXXlll for the purposes of that Chapter, (b) no lvlagistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this Section unless the accused rs produced before him rn person for the flrst ttme and subsequently every time till the accused rematns in the custody of the police, but the l\/agistrate may extend fudher detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electrontc video linkage. (c) no Magrstrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court. shall authortse detention in the custody of the police." 5 ETD,J Crl F. No.12465 o12025 B. Tne petitioner was remanded to juclic;ial custody on 26 08.2025 and the first period of remand gc t completed on 09 09 2C25 ancl on iire verir same day the present petiticn was frled seekrng police, custocly The contention of the Iearni:rl co;nsel for the petitioner is tf at failure of the respondent tn seeking irolice custody tn the first 15 days itself proves that there is no necesr;r y to seek police custody of the petitioner as there is nothing to be elicited from him However, tlre contention of the learned Standinq lounsel for the respondent rs ihat the cuslody of the petitiont:r is very nruch necessary for confronting hinr with the statements of other persons and to trace or.rt the proceeds of crime (POC) laun 1r:red by him and through hrs farrily mernbers, various entrties and to trace out and attach the entire POC including cash generated irr the scam and further to confront hrrn with certain records and do:rrments collected during the course of investigation. However, the rltin contention of the petitioner rs that the police custody cannot be Jlranted after the expiry of first '1 5 days of remand

9. I he principle laid down in Central Bureau of lnvestigation v, Anupam J. Kulkarni (1 supra) is as follows 'Having regard to the words "in such custtrly as such lvlagist ate thrnks fit a ternt not exceeding frfteen rlays in the whole" occurrrng in Sub-section (2) of Section 107 now the question rs whether it can be construed that the poli:r: custody, if any. sl,ou d be within this period of first frfteen days and nct later I l 6 E!@!E Crl P No.12465 of 20. or alternatively in a case tf such remand had not been obtalned or the number of days of police custody in the first fifteen days are less whether the polce can ask subsequently for police custody for full penod of fifteen days not avalled earlier or for the remarnrng days during the rest of the periods of ninety days or sixty days covered by the proviso The decisions menlioned above do not deal with this question precisely except the ludgment of the Delhi High Court in State v. Dharam Pal [1982 Cri.LJ 1 103) Taking the plain language into consideration partrcularly the words "otheMise than ln the custody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days" in the proviso it has to be held that the custody after the expiry of the first fifteen days can only be ludicial custody durrng the rest of the periods of ninety days or sixty days and lhat police custody if found necessary of fifteen days To this extent the vrew taken in Dharam Pal's case is correct " 1O Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the light of the said decision granting of police custody after the expiry of 15 days is not tenable.

11. While so, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V. Senthil Balaji's (2 supra) case. lt was held that the maximum period of 1 5 days of police custody is meant to be applied to the entire period of investigation / 60 or 90 days as a whole. The Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborately discussed the provision under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as follows: " We have given our anterpretation on the scope and ambit of Section 167(2) CrPC. 1973. With due respect, we are unable --ll-. 7 ETD,J Crl.f,. No 12465 of 2O2S to concrir n,ith the vrews expressed in Anupam J. KL karnr io the effect th3t a poLce custody shall only be wrthln the fir st I 5 d.ays of remand N )vr'here uncjer Section 167(2) CrpC 1! ,.3 such a stipulatron iri foLnd gr .ter dtrec y or jndrrscfly. The Lryo cs su:h as 'time to trnte, ,such custociy,. and ,,in the whole., : rent,oned uficjer gs6l1;1 .j67(2) CrpC. 1973 have not been prc]D,)rly taken note of and intei-preted What rs required is a sirnpie Ird fatural rnterpretatro:t when lltere is nc sentblance of ambtgUrl,. The .ttendment behrnd the proviso has als., rot 5een construed fjectron 162(2) CrpC, .1973, as stated. clo,:s a f ine balancinli act between the irberty cf an individuai an j a proper investigalton perhaps, this Court was keeping in n.,nd le earlier CrP[, 1 699 which rostr tcts the period of rnvesttgatiori o 1 5 days alone. Crrce the peloti rs ,lrv3n as OC clays or g0 ! r/s as tne case rnay be to an rnvestigatrng aqency rn tune wjth ti 3 pro\/tSo, Section r67(2) crpc. i 973 by even normar in1., lretatlon facilitales a aolice cLjsiooy spannrng over the saic iL ioc. cut "whole" bernc; for i 5 days. lt appears to us that a clear prrovision has not been construed correcfly while adding ceftain ,",crds

12. The Hon,bje Apex Court has discussed Anupam J. Kulkarni.s Case and has held that a ll,)\ving the said interpretation ls contrary to the very ntandate of i :ction ,l67(2) Cr.P C and would cause serious prejudice to the inves iqation the y1"* taken in

13. Thus In view of the law laid down in Senthil Balaji,s case and also in view of the statutory provision Cr.P.C, it is held that the police custody of 20.09 2025 to 29.og.2OZs granted by the trial court conformity with the statutory position and the law laid undei' S;€)ction 167 (2) ten (1C) days from is \/ery much in alr ),,r'n in Senthil .% 1-'1 .' r{::a1 ."4*Xi} -' _ .''.:.:1 .::' Li C .P. No.12465 af 2i) Balaji's case. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order dated

18.09.2025 passed in Crl tV P No 3401 of 2025 in ECIRIHYZOI4ZI 2022 by the iearned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad i2. Accordinglir, the Criminal Petition is dismissed l\,,4iscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- L LAKSHMI BABU EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer. CCS polrce Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Standino Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcemnt, High Coun for the State of Teiangana .r Hyd";abu;iO[i]-' 4. One CC to SRI Drleep Kumar Bommena, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies NV I]/PSI-L HlGH COURT DATED:2510912025 ORDER CRLP.No.12465 of 2025 lttE SI 4lF ) "/v 0 6 il0\/ iln5 04:SPATCs€9 * a. , 6)I DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION )4 1rr