1
Crl.M.P. No.236/2025
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Present: Sri P.V.S. Suryanarayana Murty,
Special Judge for Trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, Rajamahendravaram.
Thursday, the 3rd day of April, 2025
Crl. M.P. No.236/2025 in Cr.No.1/RCT-RJY/2025
Between:
Lanke Guna Sekhar, S/o. Jayaram, aged 32 years, Sub-Inspector of
Police, Pithapuram Rural Police Station, Pithapuram, Kakinada
District, R/o. Ramakrishna Nagar, Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada
Rural Mandal, N/o. D.No.5-232, Mahila Mandali Katta, Ganguru
Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.
… Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1.
And
The State – Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti-CorruptionBureau,RajamahendravaramRange,
Rajamahendravaram.
… Respondent/Complainant.
This petition is coming on 02.04.2025 and 03.04.2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. Ram Prasad, Advocate representing for Sri. Mandapaka Bhaskar, Advocate for Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 and Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:
2
Crl.M.P. No.236/2025
O R D E R
1.This is a petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused
Officer No.1 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhitha (herein after referred to as B.N.S.S.) seeking the court to englarge him on regular bail.
2. The case of the Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 in brief is as follows:
The Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 was working as
Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural Police Station, Kakinada
District. The respondent had registered a case in Crime No.1/RCT-
RJY/2025 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment)
Act, 2018 against the Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 and Accused
No.2 based on the false complaint lodged by the de facto complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 25.03.2025 and produced before the court and this court remanded him to the judicial custody. The respondent alleged that the Petitioner/Accused
Officer No.1 along with Accused No.2 demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the de facto complainant for doing official favour.
The Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 is innocent and he never demanded nor accepted any bribe amount from the de facto complainant at any point of time. The allegation levelled against him are all false and baseless. The Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 had no knowledge about the tainted amount. The respondent unnecessarily attributed the tainted amount to the Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 and falsely implicated in the case. The Petitioner/Accused Officer 3
Crl.M.P. No.236/2025
No.1 is duty bound officer and ready to co-operate with the
Investigating Agency. The respondent already examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements and also seized relevant file. It seems there is no further investigation. It is prayed to allow the petition.
3. The Respondent/Prosecution filed the counter and the brief contentions are as follows:
On 27.10.2024, the de facto complainant and Sanaboina
Ganga Raju standing at the main road and then one Sanaboyina
Suribabu going to his house along with his sheep, in the meanwhile two persons came on motorcycle and dashed the sheep, then the de facto complainant and another questioned the said persons and there was a quarrel between them. On the same day at about 11.30
P.M., the de facto complainant received a phone call from
Pithapuram Rural Police Station and the de facto complainant and
Ganga Raju appeared before the Pithapuram Rural Police Station on 28.10.2024 and the Police asked them to wait in the station till evening. On 20.03.2025, the Sub Inspector of Police called the de facto complainant on phone and asked him to come to the Police
Station in the evening. The Sub Inspector of Police demanded the bribe amount from de facto complainant and the said conversation recorded in the phone and converted into DVDs and gave report to the ACB. Based on the complaint, a case was registered in Crime
No.1/RCT-RJY/2025 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The Pre trap proceedings conducted by the
DSP on 24.03.2025 and Post trap proceedings were also conducted.
4
Crl.M.P. No.236/2025
During the Post trap proceedings, it came to light that as per the instructions of the Accused Officer No.1, Accused No.2 accepted
Rs.20,000/- from the de facto complainant. The chemical test conducted to the hand fingers of the Accused No.2 yielded positive result. Then the Trap Laying Officer seized the tainted amount and the files under the cover of Mediator report No.II. The investigation is not yet completed. The statement of the de facto complainant under
Section 164 Cr.P.C is yet to be recorded. If the Petitioner/Accused
Officer No.1 is enlarged on bail, he is likely to interfere with the process of recording 164 Cr.P.C statement of de facto complainant.
The role of alleged Accused Officer No.3 is yet to be established.
Some more witnesses have to be examined. It is prayed to dismiss the petition.
4.No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.
5.Heard.
6.Now, the point for determination is that:
Whether the Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 is entitled for the regular bail ?
7. POINT :
This is a petition filed by the Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., seeking the court to englarge him on bail. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the de facto complainant is resident of P. Donthamuru Village, Pithapuram Mandal and on 27.10.2024, there was a quarrel between de facto 5
Crl.M.P. No.236/2025
complainant with two persons and later de facto complainant received a phone call from the Pithapuram Rural Police Station at about 11.30 P.M., and on the next day the de facto complainant along with Ganga Raju went to the Police Station and came to know that there was a case registered against them. The further version of the Prosecution is that the DSP informed the de facto complainant that a false case was filed against him and he need not worry about the case. The further version of the Prosecution is that the Accused
Officer No.1 being the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural
Police Station contacted the de facto complainant over phone and asked him to come to the station and demanded bribe amount of
Rs.10,000/- each and on 20.03.2025, the de facto complainant recorded the conversation between himself and the Accused Officer
No.1 in a phone and converted it into DVD and gave a complaint.
The further version of the Prosecution is that on 24.03.2025, the Trap
Laying Officer caught hold the Accused No.2 while accepting the bribe amount from de facto complainant as per the instructions of
Accused Officer No.1 and arrested the Accused Officer No.1 and
Accused No.2 and seized the tainted amount.
8.In the citation reported in
AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 5272
IN BETWEEN
P. CHIDAMBARAM VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the following parameters to be taken into consideration while considering the application for bail:
6
Crl.M.P. No.236/2025
i. the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; ii. reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; iii. reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; iv. character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; v. larger interest of the public or the State.
9.Keeping in mind the guiding principles in the above citation, this court scrutinized the material on record. The
Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 was working as Sub-Inspector of
Police, Pithapuram Rural Police Station. The specific version of the
Prosecution is that Accused Officer No.1 contacted the de facto complainant through phone and also demanded the bribe amount.
The record further reveals that the de facto complainant recorded the conversation between himself and the Accused Officer No.1 took place on 20.03.2025 in his mobile phone and converted it into DVD and given to the ACB officials. The record further reveals that the investigation in this case is not yet completed. The case registered against the Accused Officer No.1 is for the offence under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that the allegations leveled against the alleged Accused Officer No.3 also ascertained and some more witnesses has to be examined. As seen from the record, the allegations leveled against the Accused Officer No.1 are serious in 7
Crl.M.P. No.236/2025
nature. The investigation is not yet completed. The statement of the de facto complainant under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., not yet completed. Hence the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor that if the Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 is enlarged on bail, there is a possibility to threaten the witnesses cannot be ruled out. Considering the nature of the offence and stage of the investigation, this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 is not entitled for bail at this stage.
10.In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3 rd day of April, 2025.
Sd/- Sri P.V.S. Suryanarayana Murty
SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Copy to:
(1) The DSP ACB, Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram. (2) Sri Mandapaka Bhaskar, Advocate for Petitioner/Accused Officer No.1. (3) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.
// True Copy //
Special Judge for Trial of Cases
under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Rajamahendravaram