Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 696 (TS)

Suresh Daliya v. State Of Telangana

2020-09-14

K.LAKSHMAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - I.A.No.1 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner - accused No.4 to modify the order 06.08.2020 passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.3188 of 2020 to surrender and furnish the sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for Economic Offence - cum - VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and extend the time specified in the order. 2. Whereas, Crl.P. No.4086 of 2020 is filed by the respondent's authorities for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide the order dated 06.08.2020 in Crl.P. No.3188 of 2020. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.P. No.3188 of 2020. 4. Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Vikas Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that pursuant to the order dated 06.08.2020, the petitioner went to the office of the respondent on 21st and 26th of August, 2020 to comply with the condition of executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties along with his lawyer. The respondent's authorities did not allow him to come its office to comply with the order dated 06.08.2020. He would further submit that a letter was also sent to the said effect and also filed the affidavit of the learned counsel on record in support of the said contentions. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P. Dharmesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Directorate of Revenue Intelligence appearing on behalf of the respondent, would submit that the petitioner is not cooperating with the Investigating Agency and not receiving the summons sent and even not attending to the phone calls. The petitioner is coming to the cellar of the office premises, approaching the Security Guard there and leaving the office without reporting before the concerned Officer. Therefore, he sought to cancel the order dated 06.08.2020 passed in Crl.P. No.3188 of 2020. 6. It is not in dispute that this Court vide order dated 06.08.2020 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with five conditions. It is the specific contention of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner herein went to the office of the respondent for the purpose of executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties in compliance of condition No.1 of the said order. It is the specific contention of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner herein went to the office of the respondent for the purpose of executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties in compliance of condition No.1 of the said order. In the counter filed by the respondent, it is also admitted by it that the petitioner did appear at their office along with his lawyer on two occasions, but was asked to wait for arrival of the Senior Intelligence Officer, who was out in the field on another on-going case. 7. Whereas, Mr. P. Dharmesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor, would submit that the petitioner is not co-operating with the Investigating Officer by appearing before him and did not answer to the phone calls and he is not receiving notices and, therefore, they have filed Crl.P. No.4086 of 2020 seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has taken Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) to furnish the sureties in compliance of order dated 06.08.2020. The petitioner herein has filed copies of the FDRs dated 26.08.2020. The affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the counter filed by the respondent would show that the petitioner did appear before the respondent on two occasions. 9. Considering the above aspects, I.A. No.1 of 2020 is disposed of directing the petitioner - accused No.4 to approach the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad, on 22.09.2020 between 11.00 A.M. and 3.00 P.M. and execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Ruapees one lakh only) with two sureties for a like sum each to his satisfaction in compliance of the order dated 06.08.2020. The Senior Intelligence Officer is directed to receive the same from the petitioner. However, the other conditions imposed by this Court in the order dated 06.08.2020 in Crl.P. No.3188 of 2020 shall remain unaltered. 10. In view of the above, Crl.P. No.4086 of 2020 is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the respondent's authorities are at liberty to take steps for cancellation of anticipatory bail in the event of the petitioner - accused No.4 fails to comply with the conditions imposed in the order dated 06.08.2020 in Crl.P. No.3188 of 2020 and also the condition imposed today in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in Crl.P. No.3188 of 2020. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.