Kapildeo Yadav Vs. State of Bihar.z, Manish yadav vs Assama.

4. Heard Smt. P. Naga Deepika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Sri palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the pelitioner submitted that the case filed against the petitioner is entirely false and lacking in substance ald that merely interacting with other accused individuals, who are ofhcials of ,.the Special Investigation Bureau (SIB), does not imply his involvement in any criminal I --------=/ 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.: 3 134 of 2024 activity. Sf c lrrrther submitted that with rogard t ) the allegations oi :,olitical surveillance, the petitioner mairrtains that gatherinsl r'rd sharing political information s a 1e gir imaLe activity that ( (',ls not constitute a crime. The asst:rt on of prosecution tl:r.l this information facilitated othet' accused individuals in .:rmmitting a crime, pointing out that pc:litical analysis anl r :::.t polls are inherently speculative e nd based on informat.c)n rom various sources, was questicrncd .

6. Lezrrn e I , lunsel for the -petitioner contended thr rt the petitioner als;o lisputes allegations that he inducerl political leaders to join lie BRS party, stating that there is rto cr:dible evidence to ril f ).ort this contention. She furtlrer srrbr nitted that exchanlli, Li:, critical information about politic rl t rrgets and trackir:g I reir movements is not a valid allella tic,n , AS there is no co r,rete proof to substantiate these cor.Il(]rtions She further ,rc . :ended that the allegation that the pe'ti tioner obtained 15,13i , ns6bers from accused No.6, the Malaging Director of j 'i,:ws, and shared them with othr:r s lacks evidence an I i t-herefore baseless. Moreover, lezrrned cc)unsel for the petit i,rr r' : pointed out that the SIB Police dt:parr-ment already has a l:ess to detaiied information about r:it izens, 4 sxs,J Crl.P.IIo.13134 of 2024 - rendering this allegation redundant. She averred that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and that no witness was examined to sho:y that people were targeted. Additionalry, there was no mention of critical information, and the petitioner left the country before the institution of the FIR, frequently visiting his sister due to her ill health. Therefore, while contending that the allegations against the petitioner are unfounded, lacking in evidence, and do not constitute a crime under the penal Code, she prayed to the Court to grant pre-arrest bail Lo the petitioner by allowing this Criminal petition.

7. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments rendered in the cases of Arif Masood Vs. State of Madhya pradeshl, Kapil yadav Kapildeo Yadav Vs. State of Bihar.z, Manish yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3, and Md.Nazrul Islam Vs. State of Assama. @ 8 On the other hand, learned public prosecutor filed a counter opposing the bail petition, stating that the ' 2o2t cRt L I soa ' ntR oNLtNr zo2o pat 6t+ ' ntR ottLtttE 2022 ALL 5o1o 'zoog cRL L.t 3gzq 7/ 5 SKS,J Crl. P.No.1313zr of 2024 investiga tio e L :,'s uncovered a serious crime involvin g cr 'minal conspiracl', c:'i-ninal breach of trust, cyber terrorisrrr, al.Id illegal sur u-erll ttce, among others, and that lhe lret'tioner allegedly nLisr sed his ofhcial position to commit th I said crimes, posin: a threat to national securitv an'i public interest. F[r' r',erred that the charges against the lret tloner include Sect.o r 4O9 of the IPC and Section 66(F) ol ttLe rT Act, 200O, wbich (:rrry a sentence of life imprisonnlent, as such, releasing ,-he accused at this stage could I'rirLdt r lhe investigation, ,;end a wrong signal to the ptLt'-lic, and compromis,: t 't: integrity of the investigation. FIc zrs'serted that accorclinr , to the prosecution, ,{2 revealecl l]rc nz Lme of this petitio1c,r '",r,hich resulted in him leaving the <:ourr[ty on the inten,crr r: night of 13th and 14th March, 2024, arrd that the same c,r;n :r,les with the date of the first arrest in th': case. Subsequr:n [ 1 r l.his, A2 was arrested, which clearll' sho urs the unf2i1 q,:66 1r, ,rl the petitioner.

9. Leartrr:c l)ublic Prosecutor additionally contt:rde d that despite a.n \l i\V being issued to the petitiont:r, he c icl not appear bcfxe the trial Court, and for recall of the srLme, a petition u'zLs; led. He averred that additional mzLt:ri,rl has 6 SKS,J Cil.P.Ito. 13134 of 2024 r been filed showing that a petition was filed before the trial Court to proclaim the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, whereas, as of now, he has not been declared a proclaimed offender according to the prosecution. Therefore, while contending that the crimes alleged against the petitioner are unprecedented and of grave concern, he prayed to the Court to dismiss the petition.

10. With regard to the contentions referring to need for custodial interrogation and refusal of anticipatory bails, .and non granting of bail to absconding accused, the learned public Prosecutor relied on the judgments rendered in the cases of P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement s , Parvinderjit Singh and Another Vs. State (Union Territory Chandigarhlo, Muraleedharan Vs. State of Keralaz, Srikant Upadhyay and Others Vs. State ofBihar and Anothere.

11. Having regard to rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the only contention of the petitioner is that he is not concerned or involved in the alleged offence and that with vague allegations, 5 6 a 2079 9 SCC 24 2008 scc 13 431 ArR 2001SC 1699 2024 tNSC 202 1 SKS'J Crl.P.No.131:I4 of :)O24 the petitioner il; r'-Lplicated in the case' However' as seetl fr-om petttloner, incomPlete, regard is anticiPatory barr extraordinarl'r UpadhyaY (st- 1r interrogation 1'r to note that I L t-- it is an (>(i therecord,:-h:11..-itionerhasbeenabscondingforalorrlltme. Further, mlrtt:r il I evidence was seized from the house o{ the ar cl . '.c crucial part of the investigation rl thrs necessitating custodial s il rirt being so, at this juncture' it is rnt;'er'lttve llon'ble Supreme Court in the case ol Sirikant .r 8) held that the consistent judicial vie''v on petitions under Section 438 of Cr'P'O is that ';:,tional remedy to be exercised only in r'cumslances and not as a matt('r o' rortlinc' r;rlrasized that arrest should be tltc lrrsl r plion -r: sorted to only when absolutely necessar y the vr: of anticipatory bail is to prevent heLras ;ment due to personal vendetta' 'rnd 8r'lnting r I merely ensures that in the event t'f 'rrrest' I be released on bail subject to condit orrs' llut r,. be exercised cautiously as it may irrpe de the rf investigation Furthermore' a pers'rn facing :' : named in a charge sheet is ob1 ga ted to r,:: authority of law and seek rerrieclies in r.h legal provisions rather than in lciii''nce of Though it is ':r anticiPato4 ll submit to t this Power nll or humiliatio' the Person shr primary rrbj':r:t and should bc normal coltr s' investigatic'rL accordanct: v t I 8 sxs,J Crl.P-No. r3r34 of 2024 t '1 them. As such, on considering the conduct of the petitioner in the case on hand, and on considering the severrt5r of the allegations leveled againstn the petitioner and applying the established legal principles regarding anticiparory bail, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pre_arrest bail. There are no merits in this case, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 72 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// {, SEC OFFICER To,

1. The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Smt. Naga Deepika P, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ADI(/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2110212'125 I ORDER cRLP.No .131ilt. ot 2024 /= .'--. -- :\ 7'--::r-Sil'") \ ). c. /; I i;\'; \ ,, 23 tui zlx5 z C) \ r,. \... .,'r-: {; +t ,.* ....., DISMISSING I-TIE CRLP p"t () (