The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash proceedrngs in Cr. No.1O/RCT-ACB-M DK/2025 of ACB Medak Range at Sangareddy pending agarnst the Petitroner/Accused No. 2 l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in Cr.No.10/RCT-ACB-MDK|2O25 ot ACB Medak Range at Sangareddy, pending against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 and follow Sec., 35(3) BNSS, pending drsposal of the above criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M V RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL CUM SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER : ! I t I I i t I t i i ! l ! i THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TTRUMALA DEV EADA CRIMINAL PETITON No.14308 ot 2021) ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner- tccused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr. No.10/RC I ACB-MDK of 2025 the file of ACB Medak Range at Sangareddy, re: stered forthe offences under Sections 7(a) of the Prevention of tl rrruption Act, 19BB (for short 'PC Act')

2. Heard Sri lV,V. Rajkumar Gabreil, learned : runsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Ste r ding Counsel cum Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 ACB

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitior er is accused No.2 and that he along with Accused Officer No' (AO'1 ) have demanded and accepted bribe from the de faclo comp I rinant

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has ubmitted that the petitioner herein is A2 and there is no reference a; to the name of the petitioner in the entire complaint and that there s no material on record to show that the petitioner herein l- i s demanded Rs.40,000/- as alleged in the complaint and that lhere are no allegations to attract the offence under Section 7(a) f the PC Act 2 ETD,J c.t P No.1r30a ot 202s against the petitioner and that in the absence of demand, the said offence cannot be proved agatnst the petitioner. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for ACB has submitted that the petitioner is a close inmate of Ao 1 and on the instructions of AO'1 , the petitioner has taken the de facto complainant,s phone and initiated PhonePe transaction for an amount of Rs.9,000/- to the phone number of one N.Balaraju. After that, the AO1 instructed the de facto complainant to pay the remaining bribe amount as early as possible. He further stated that the petitioner usually transfers the amount through different persons and on the next day he would collect the transferred amount by way of cash and that about this particular transaction, it is alleged that on 23.10.2025, he received an amount of Rs.9,000/- from one Bhaskar, who is unknown to him, then after sometime, he received the phone call from Santosh, petitioner herein, stating that he has sent an amount of Rs.9,000/- and requested to pay him on the next day by way of cash. On his request, Sri Balaraju utilized the said amount for paying his credit card bill of an amount of Rs.B,7.l 9l and on the next day he swiped his credit card and has withdrawn an amount of Rs.8,704l_ from Sharada filing Station and added the remaining amount of Rs.300/_ J EfD,J Ctt D a 1.303 oI2025 and paid Rs.9,000/- to the petitioner on the next day The learned Standing Counsel submitted that said facts were nrl le out during the course of investigation and that the involvement c f the petitioner herein is revealed during the investrgation He further ubnrrtted that the investigation is still in progress and therefore, praled to dismiss the petition 6 Perused the record 7 The allegations point out prima facie ca:; against the petitroner herein under Section 7(a) of the PC Act. Tlr contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there rs r I evidence to prove the demand made by the petitioner herein :rr d that in the absence of demand, the offence alleged against I nr cannot be proved. But, this Court cannot evaluate the materia I the evrdence on record at this stage. The allegations prima facie po nt out that the petitioner herein, who is accused No.2 aided AO1 arranging for the transactions of bribe by diverting the amounts to .l e accounts of third persons and receiving the same from them by wit ,of cash \ B. The learned Standing Counsel for ACB has r :lied upon the decision in Devader Kumar Bansal v. State of Ptrr jabl, wherein ' 2025 Livelaw (SC) 291 I I I I I I l I l 4 ETD,J C.l.P. No-1,t7OA ot 2O2s the petitioner therein - an Audit lnspector, was alleged to have demanded iilegar gratification for conducting audit. The co_accused was apprehended red handed while accepting the bribe and there was an audio recording, corroborating the demand. The High Court has denied the anticipatory bail. When the matter reached the Apex Court it has held that: "24 lt libedy is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then courts should not hesttate tn denying such liberty. Where overwhelming consideration the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denred lt is altogether a different thing to say that once the investtgalron rs over and charge_ sheet iS filed. Court may constder to grant regular bail to a public servant accused of indulging corruptron

9. ln the light of the above cited decision and in view of the above held discussion, since the present matter pertains to the allegation of corruption and the investigation is still in progress, the proceedrngs against the petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence, the petition lacks merit and the same ls liable to be drsmissed. '10. Accordingly, the Criminal petition IS dismissed !Pqq!@if any,shail stand SD/. P PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I \ \ /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The ll Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE&ACB Cases, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District

2. The Station House Officer, ACB Medak Range ai Sangareddy Police Station, Sangareddy Diskict - .'_'lI _ - -:_---1 :l:-.1ry::a r" .Itrffi*

3. One CC to SRI lt/ V RAJ KUIVIAR GABRIEL Advocate [OE JC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of lelangana at Hyderabad [OUT] I 5- Two CD Copies VM/PSL Yk HIGH COURT DATED: 24t1112025 I 't \ ORDER CRLP.No.14308 of 2025 fu'*-.5 c C.(, it 5 J,::r:i liiao -!- 7: .') I ../| \. .],) |,.?. ' ',,1 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION % c-eI'@L