Dr. T. Raghu Ram

Page 1 of 10Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 20 25

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

CBI CASES: HYDERABAD.

Dated : Tuesday, the 23rd day of December, 2025.

Present : Sri Dr. T.Raghu Ram,

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad.

Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 2025

[Crl.M.P.No. 6312 of 2025 (Reg.No.)]

in

R.C.No. 01(E) / 2021

Between :

Sharad Kumar S/o. K.N.Sreekantiah, Aged about 63 years, D-302, Aditya Hill Top, Road Number 82, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500096. … Petitioner/Accused No.5

And

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Rep. by Public Prosecutor. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming before me on 18.12.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri Duvva Pavan Kumar – Counsel for the Petitioner/A5 and of Smt. S.Ananthi – Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/ Complainant; upon hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record; and that the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.Petition filed by Accused No.5 seeking permission to travel abroad.

2.(i) The petitioner/A5 contends, the respondent has registered above crime against him and others, and he was granted anticipatory

Page 2 of 10Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 20 25 bail by the Hon'ble High Court in CRLP.No.2549 of 2021. He has been cooperating with the concerned authorities for investigation, and he already had submitted all the requisite information and records to the respondent.

(ii) He further contends, while granting anticipatory bail, the

Hon'ble High Court, among other conditions, imposed a condition that

he shall appear before the concerned authorities on every Friday and later it was relaxed by the Hon'ble High Court by its orders dt.03.08.2021. On receipt of summons from the respondent, he appeared before the respondent on 02.07.2021, 09.07.2021, 16.07.2021, 23.07.2021 and 13.08.2025, and he would appear before the respondent authorities if summoned again.

(iii) He also contends, he has no role in the alleged offences and it was established by multiple proofs. He is a respectable citizen having good reputation in the business circle. All the information pertaining to the alleged offence is available with the Liquidator of the

Company.

(iv) The petitioner also contends, he intends to travel to London,

UK between 01.02.2026 and 31.03.2026 to visit his son, daughter-in- law and his new born grandchild who are residing at 90, DUKE Road

London (UK).

(v) He also contends, he was restricted from travelling abroad due to Look Out Circular issued against him by SBI. He challenged

Page 3 of 10Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 20 25 the same by way of W.P.No.26063 of 2021 before the Hon'ble High

Court, and the Hon'ble High Court by its orders dt.01.11.2022 in

IA.No.2 of 2022 and dt.04.12.2023 in IA.No.1 of 2023 permitted him to

travel abroad and finally the Hon'ble High Court by its orders dt.16.07.2024 set aside the Look Out Circular dt.04.02.2021 on the condition that he shall furnish security of Rs.25 lakh in Cr.No.

RC0782021E001, and on the condition of filing application before the

trial Court in Cr.No. RC0782021E001 seeking permission to travel abroad. Thereupon he filed a Writ Appeal challenging the conditions imposed. Later he complied with the direction of furnishing security of Rs.25 lakh before this Court in the form of Fixed Deposit bearing

No.8084949114 dt.20.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.232/2024.

(vi) He also contends, earlier, he filed Crl.M.P.No.212/2025 which was allowed by this Court granting him permission to travel to

London, UK from 10.09.2025 to 10.10.2025 subject to his furnishing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/-, and he complied with that condition and travelled to London, UK and returned to India on 04.10.2025.

Recently, he was blessed with a grandchild and he and his wife deeply desirous of travelling to London to see their grandchild for the first time. Merely because he is an accused/under-trial he does not get denuded of all his fundamental rights. Right to travel abroad is an inseverable part of his fundamental right to his dignity and personal liberty, which is now well settled law. He may, therefore, be

Page 4 of 10Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 20 25 permitted to travel to London, UK from 01.02.2026 to 31.03.2026 for the purpose of visiting his grandchild.

3.(i) Notice of the petition is given to the respondent and it has filed its counter stating inter alia that the petitioner, who is one of the

Directors of M/s Coastal Projects Ltd. (A1) conspired with other accused and took loan of Rs.4736.57 crore from consortium of banks led by State Bank of India. He maintained several Current Accounts outside consortium and did not route transactions through the lead bank. Amounts were not realised/credited into account corresponding to sales shown in Audited Financials. The financials of M/s Coastal

Projects Ltd. (A1) were manipulated/falsified to show unrealisable invoked BG as realisable investments in a Wholly Owned Subsidiary (WOS) company. M/s Coastal Projects Ltd. (A1) inflated profits to get higher credit facilities. The promoters' contribution brought during

CDR was not properly accounted, LCs were issued against parties/sub- contractors who are making promoter contribution. M/s Coastal

Projects Ltd. (A1) also brought promoters' contribution from related / small parties which did not have that much of net worth.

(ii) The role of the petitioner is under active investigation in the instant bank fraud case which caused huge wrongful loss to public exchequer. He has cheated 31 banks and private finance companies being Director of Accused No.1 Company. The case against the

Page 5 of 10Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 20 25 petitioner and other accused was registered on 06.01.2021 on the basis of complaint given on 01.01.2021 by State Bank of India arraigning the petitioner as one of the accused in his capacity as

Director of M/s Coastal Projects Ltd. (A1). His statement that he resigned from M/s Coastal Projects Ltd. (A1) on 07.07.2017 itself does not contradict the allegation in the FIR that during the period prior to 2017, he functioned as Director of M/s Coastal Projects Ltd. (A1).

(iii) It further contends that though the Hon'ble High Court in the common orders dt.27.04.2021 passed in IA.No. 2 of 2022 dt.01.11.2022 and IA.No. 1 of 2023 dt.04.12.2023 in W.P.No.26063 of 2021 directed the petitioner that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court, he has not complied with the condition. If the petitioner is permitted to go abroad, it may hinder the process of investigation and trial, due to his frequent absence from India. The nature and gravity of the accusation against M/s

Coastal Projects Ltd. (A1) of which the petitioner is one of the

Directors, is clearly evident as per the complaint and subsequent investigation. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

4.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner/A5 be permitted to travel to London, UK from 01.02.2026 to 31.03.2026, as prayed for?

Page 6 of 10Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 20 25

POINT:

6.The allegation made against the petitioner as seen from from the record is, the petitioner was the whole-time Director of Company

M/s Coastal Projects (A-1) from 08.12.2014 to 07.01.2017. The

Company availed credit facilities from consortium of Banks and financial institutions and committed default in repayment of loans so taken and which are to a tune of Rs.7876.65 crores. Further, it had resorted to fraudulent accounting practices and siphoning off loan amounts contrary to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement; and the Bank also conducted a forensic auditing of the accounts of the Company for the period from 2013 to 2018 in terms of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and resolved to classify the accounts of Accused No.1 Company as fraud; and also lodged a complaint with the respondent, who in turn, registered the said case.

7.Copies of the documents filed along with the petition and the record also show that the petitioner, who filed Criminal Petition

No.2549 of 2021, was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High

Court in Criminal Petition No.2549 of 2021 on 27.04.2021 on, among other conditions, a condition that he shall personally appear before the Superintendent of Police (BS&FB), Bangalore on every Friday between 12.00 Noon and 5.00 P.M., till completion of the

Page 7 of 10Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 20 25 investigation. Later he filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 in the said Criminal

Petition No.2549 of 2021 for relaxation of that condition and the same was allowed; and that condition was relaxed making it clear that he shall appear before the Superintendent of Police concerned as and when so required for the purpose of further investigation, if any.

Later, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.26063 of 2022 to quash

Look Out Circular (LOC) dt.04.02.2021 issued against him and direct the respondent herein and other respondents therein not to interfere with his life and personal liberty; and not to obstruct or restrain him from travelling abroad. He also filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 in that Writ

Petition to permit him to travel to USA from 01.11.2022 to 22.11.2022; and he was granted permission and LOC issued against him was also suspended for a period from 04.11.2022 to 22.11.2022.

He also filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in the said Writ Petition No.26063 of 2022 seeking permission to travel to London from 21.12.2023 to 05.01.2024; and he was accordingly permitted and LOC for the period from 21.12.2023 to 05.01.2024 was suspended. Later, the main Writ

Petition was also allowed setting aside the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner on, among other conditions, a condition that he shall furnish security for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, at Nampally,

Hyderabad, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of order. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.1192 of 2024

Page 8 of 10Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 20 25 for setting aside the order directing the petitioner to furnish security for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. On 19.12.2024 the petitioner filed a memo along with copy of orders of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal

No.1192 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the Writ Appeal was dismissed; and he filed a memo on 20.12.2024 along with a Fixed

Deposit Receipt bearing Account No.43638184450, dt.09.03.2026 for

Rs.25.00 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, O.U. Colony Branch,

Hyderabad. The record also shows notice of the memo with which fixed deposit receipt is filed, was given to the learned Public

Prosecutor and learned Public Prosecutor endorsed no specific endorsement opposing the memo or for furnishing security of

Rs.25.00 lakhs by the petitioner.

8.Now the petitioner seeks permission to travel to London, UK for the period from 01.02.2026 to 31.03.2026.

9.The record shows, earlier the petitioner was permitted to travel to London, UK from 10.09.2025 to 10.10.2025 (vide orders of this

Court in Crl.M.P.No.212/2025 dt.25.08.2025). In that petition he contended that his daughter-in-law was in London, UK and was pregnant, and now he contends his daughter-in-law gave birth to a child and he and his wife are desirous to see their grandchild.

Page 9 of 10Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 20 25

10.The Hon'ble High Court in I.A.No. 2 of 2022 in W.P.No.26063 of 2022 granted permission to the petitioner to travel to USA from 04.11.2022 to 22.11.2022. Similarly, in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in the same writ petition the Hon'ble High Court granted permission to the petitioner to travel to London from 21.12.2023 to 05.01.2024 for a period of 16 days and the said W.P.No.26063 of 2022 was finally closed on 16.07.2024, setting aside the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner on, among other conditions, a condition that if the petitioner intens to travel abroad, he shall file an application

before the trial Court in Crime No. RC0782021E001 dt.06.01.2021

and it is for the Special Court to consider the said application in accordance with law.

11.It is not the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has violated the conditions earlier imposed either by this Court or by the

Hon'ble High Court.

12.Learned Public Prosecutor would submit, stringent conditions may be imposed.

13.The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dt.09.04.2019 reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 2048 in Satish Chandra

Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others, observed at para 5 as under:

Page 10 of 10Crl.M.P.No. 330 of 20 25 "The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right."

14. Considering these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to go to London, UK for the period from 01.02.2026 to 31.03.2026, as prayed for, on certain conditions.

Hence, the point is accordingly answered.

15.In the result, the petition is allowed permitting the petitioner/

A5 to travel to London, UK from 01.02.2026 to 31.03.2026, on the following conditions :

(1) The petitioner/A5 shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of this Court.

(2) The petitioner/A5 shall furnish his tour itinerary, his phone number and email address to this Court as well as to the respondent/CBI prior to leaving India.

(3)The petitioner/A5 shall make himself available over the said telephone during his visit to abroad.

(4)The petitioner/A5 shall appear before this Court on 02.04.2026, on completion of his travel.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE

FOR CBI CASES: HYDERABAD

Page 1 of 6Crl.M.P.No. 287 of 20 25

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

CBI CASES: HYDERABAD.

Dated : Thursday, the 4th day of December, 2025.

Present : Sri T. Raghu Ram,

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

FAC III Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Crl.M.P.No. 28 7 of 2025

[Crl.M.P.No. 1634 of 2025 (Reg.No.)]

in

C.C.No. 22 of 2013

Between :

V.Naga Surya Padmasri W/o. Gopala Reddy Aged 54 years, Former Sr. Divisional Engineer, S.C. Railways, Secunderabad, R/o. Plot #34, Aditya Niwas, Indrapuri Railway Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad. … Petitioner/A2

And

The State through CBI, A.C.B., Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming before me on 21.11.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri V.Vikram Kumar - Counsel for the Petitioner/A2 and of Dr. K.Anil Kumar - Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/ Complainant; upon hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

O R D E R

1.Petition filed under Section 22(a) r/w 6(2)(f) of Passports Act for direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office,

Hyderabad to renew the passport of the petitioner.

Page 2 of 6Crl.M.P.No. 287 of 20 25

2.(i) The petitioner contends, the above case was filed against her by the respondent alleging inter alia that she abetted her husband Mr.

V.Gopala Reddy in acquiring and possessing assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. She filed discharge petition and the same was dismissed by this Court. Against orders of dismissal she sought revision of orders of this Court and the Hon'ble High Court stayed all further proceedings pending against her. However, the case against her husband proceeded further and so far 10 witnesses have been examined. Still there are 129 witnesses to be examined and it may take substantial amount of time for completion of prosecution evidence.

(ii) She also contends, she had Passport bearing No.N7561537 with validity up to 28.02.2026. She intends to perform pilgrimage to

Kailash Manasa Sarovar and Sri Lankan Ramayana yatra for which the passport is needed with a validity of minimum six months. Hence, the petition for a direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad to renew her passport.

3.Notice of the petition is given to the respondent and it has filed its counter.

4. (i) Version of the respondent as seen from its counter is, the petitioner's husband Mr. V.Gopala Reddy, Senior Divisional Engineer (West), South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division was found

Page 3 of 6Crl.M.P.No. 287 of 20 25 demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the de facto complainant Mr. P.Srinivasa Prasad in C.C.No.3/2011. In continuity of trap proceedings, his house was searched under Section 165 Cr.P.C.

and huge cash of Rs.73,80,000/- and some other incriminating material/documents were seized and a case under Section 13(2) r/w

Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him; and since the petitioner herein, who is the wife of Mr. Gopala Reddy, is also found abetting her husband in acquisition of properties which were found to be disproportionate to their known sources of income, a case under Section 109 r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also registered against her.

(ii) Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 inter alia says if a person is convicted by a Court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for a period not less than two years, or a proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending

before a criminal court in India, or summons or warrant for the

appearance of the applicant has been issued by a Court under any law, passport can be refused.

(iii) Further, as per Gazette Notification GSR 570(E), dt.25.08.1993 of Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India (Regd.No.DL-33004/93), passports of the persons who are facing

Page 4 of 6Crl.M.P.No. 287 of 20 25 criminal cases and/or convicted accused are renewed for a period of one year only or for a period as per the orders of the competent court.

(iv) It also contends, the petitioner anticipating an adverse judgment may choose to stay back in foreign countries or move to any other country with which the Government of India has no treaties of extradition, or to the countries which would grant citizenship on the basis of investments, without the knowledge and permission of this

Court. In such a case, it may not be possible for the prosecution to secure per presence back and to subject her to the ongoing proceedings. The case is on active trial and as such renewal of passport may not be permitted.

5.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, be directed to renew the passport of the petitioner bearing No. N7561537, as prayed for?

POINT:

7.The version of the prosecution as seen from the record is, the husband of the petitioner (A1) while working as Senior Divisional

Engineer (West), South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division was found demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from one Mr. P.

Srinivasa Prasad and a case in RC.No.18(A)/2010, CBI/ACB/HYD was registered and later it was numbered as C.C.No.3 of 2011, and it

Page 5 of 6Crl.M.P.No. 287 of 20 25 ended in conviction; and later conviction was set aside by the Hon’ble

High Court. Further, in continuation of the proceedings, search was conducted at the house of the husband of the petitioner (A1) and huge net cash of Rs.73,80,000/- and other incriminating material/documents pertaining to possession of assets acquired by the husband of the petitioner (A1) were found, which prima facie proved acquisition of disproportionate assets to his known source of income and his wife, who is Accused No.2 (petitioner herein), has also abetted her husband (A1) in acquiring properties.

8.The petitioner contends, now she is at the age of 54 years and she intends to go on pilgrimage to Kailash Manasa Sarovar and Sri

Lankan Ramayana Yatra, for which she needed a passport with a validity of minimum six months; and that when she applied for renewal of her passport, passport authorities kept her passport on hold in view of pendency of case against her.

9.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is at the age of 54 years and she intends to visit Kailash

Manasa Sarovar and Sri Lankan Ramayana Yatra; and when she applied for renewal of passport, the passport authorities have refused to renew her passport in view of pendency of case against her.

10.Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is possibility of disposal of the present case and in view of Gazette Notification GSR

Page 6 of 6Crl.M.P.No. 287 of 20 25 570(E), dt.25.08.1993, passports of the persons who are facing criminal cases and/or convicted accused are renewed for a period of one year only or for a period as per the orders of the competent

Court.

11.It is pertinent to note that it is not the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has violated the conditions for her appearance before this Court.

12.Considering these facts, I opine that a direction can be given to the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad to renew the Passport of the petitioner bearing No. N7561537 for a period of two years. The point is accordingly answered.

13.In the result, the petition is allowed directing the Regional

Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad to renew the

Passport of the petitioner bearing No. N7561537 for a period of two years.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 4th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

FAC III ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

HYDERABAD

Page 1 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 293 of 20 25

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

CBI CASES: HYDERABAD.

Dated : Monday, the 1st day of December, 2025.

Present : Sri Dr. T.Raghu Ram,

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

FAC III Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Crl.M.P.No. 293 of 2025

in

C.C.No. 3 of 2015

Between :

Shri Aarakanti Bala Swamy S/o. A.Balaram, then Branch Post Master, Jupally, Veldenda Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar Dist. Telangana, R/o. H.No. 6-37, Village Jupally, Mandal Veldanda, Mahaboob Nagar Dist. Telangana - 509324.

... Petitioner/Accused

And

Union of India Rep. by Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Police, III Floor, Koti, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming before me on 26.11.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri Shaik Kasim Saheb - Counsel for the Petitioner/ Accused and of Dr. Anil Kumar Kompally - Special Public Prosecutor

for the Respondent/Complainant; upon hearing the arguments and

perusing the material on record; and that the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.Petition filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 94 of BNSS, 2023) for production of certain documents.

Page 2 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 293 of 20 25

2.(i) The petitioner contends, the respondents has filed charge sheet alleging inter alia that he committed offences punishable under

Sections 420, 477-A and 409 of IPC and also Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(ii) As per the version of the respondent, he, while working as

Branch Post Master, Jupally during the period September, 2006 to

September, 2012, misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,01,891/- (it was repaid immediately); Rs.1,54,876/- towards RD Account; and

Rs.1,33,123/- towards RPLI Account; and he also debited Rs.8,92,173/- from Branch Office Account and misappropriated that amount.

(iii) He also contends, as per the procedure laid down in the department, Sub Post Office, Kalvakurty will pay the NREGS amounts to the Branch Post Office, Jupally in cash, on BO slips, and after verification of pay orders and wage seeker's list submitted by the

Branch Post Office, Jupally. Thus, unless excess amount is paid by

Sub Post Office, Kalvakurty, there is no possibility of the accused debiting excess amount in the books of his Branch Post Office. As such, to know the excess amount alleged to have been paid by Sub

Post Office, Kalvakurty to the Branch Post Office, Jupally, pay orders, cheques, pay slips and BO slips of the period September, 2006 to

September, 2012 may be summoned from the Sub Post Master,

Kalvakurty.

Page 3 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 293 of 20 25

3.Notice of the petition is given to the respondent and it has filed its counter stating inter alia that the present petition is filed at belated stage of the trial. The collected material evidence demonstrated the modus operandi of the petitioner for misappropriation of the funds by booking excess amount of debits in books of the Branch Office. PW.34, who is the then Sub Post Master, was cross-examined at length on various aspects in general, which is evident from paragraphs 18 to 21 of his (PW.34) cross-examination.

Further all the documents, which are relevant to the present context, had already been collected during the course of investigation and were produced before the Court. Therefore, there is no necessity for issuance of summons for production of Cheques, Pay Slips, BO Slips,

Wage Seeker's List, Pay Orders showing payment of wages under

NREGS.

4.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Sub Post Master, Kalvakurty be directed to produce Cheques, Pay Slips, BO Slips, Wage Seeker's List, Pay Orders showing payment of wages under NREGS to the Branch Post Office, Jupally during the period of September, 2006 to September, 2012, as prayed for?

POINT :

6.As seen from the charge sheet, among other allegations against the petitioner, the allegation against the petitioner is he, while

Page 4 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 293 of 20 25 working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master, Jupally, has entered details of account number and amount paid under National

Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in Journals account, without mentioning the name of the account holders and later debited the excess amount in Branch Post Office Account as well as Branch

Office Daily Account against the details of payment mentioned in the

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme journals, and caused loss to a tune of Rs.8,92,173/-.

7.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, to know whether the petitioner debited excess amount in the books of account of Jupally Branch Post Office and later misappropriated that amount, cheques, pay slips, BO slips, wage seeker's slips, pay orders of the relevant period are necessary.

8.Leaned Public Prosecutor would submit, all the documents, including the documents sought to be summoned were already collected during the course of investigation and were produced before the Court. He also would submit wage seekers will not come for second time in a month and there is possibility of recalling investigating officer and the documents sought to be summoned are irrelevant.

9.It appears the allegation is, the petitioner has shown amount in

Branch Office Daily Account which is in excess of the amount worked

Page 5 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 293 of 20 25 out and paid under NREGS account and misappropriated the difference amount. As such, pay orders, cheques, wage seeker's list pertaining to the period during which he worked as Gramin Dak Sevak

Branch Post Master, Jupally, are necessary. The point is accordingly answered.

10.In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The Sub Post

Master, Kalvakurty is directed to produce pay orders, cheques and wage seeker's list pertaining to NREGS and sent to the Branch Post

Office, Jupally, during the period September, 2006 to September 2012, by 18.12.2025.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 1st day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

FAC III ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

HYDERABAD

Page 1 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 294 of 20 25

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

CBI CASES: HYDERABAD.

Dated : Monday, the 1st day of December, 2025.

Present : Sri Dr. T.Raghu Ram,

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

FAC III Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Crl.M.P.No. 294 of 2025

[Crl.M.P.No. 1670 of 2025 (Reg.No.)]

in

C.C.No. 3 of 2015

Between :

Shri Aarakanti Bala Swamy S/o. A.Balaram, then Branch Post Master, Jupally, Veldenda Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar Dist. Telangana, R/o. H.No. 6-37, Village Jupally, Mandal Veldanda, Mahaboob Nagar Dist. Telangana - 509324.

... Petitioner/Accused

And

Union of India Rep. by Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Police, III Floor, Koti, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming before me on 26.11.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri Shaik Kasim Saheb - Counsel for the Petitioner/ Accused and of Dr. Anil Kumar Kompally - Special Public Prosecutor

for the Respondent/Complainant; upon hearing the arguments and

perusing the material on record; and that the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

Page 2 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 294 of 20 25

O R D E R

1.Petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding

Section 348 of BNSS, 2023) to recall PW.34 for further cross- examination.

2.(i) The petitioner contends, the respondents has filed charge sheet alleging inter alia that he committed offences punishable under

Sections 420, 477-A and 409 of IPC and also Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(ii) As per the version of the respondent, he, while working as

Branch Post Master, Jupally during the period September, 2006 to

September, 2012, misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,01,891/- (it was repaid immediately); Rs.1,54,876/- towards RD Account; and

Rs.1,33,123/- towards RPLI Account; and he also debited Rs.8,92,173/- from Branch Office Account and misappropriated that amount.

(iii) He also contends, as per the procedure laid down in the department, Sub Post Office, Kalvakurty will pay the NREGS amounts to the Branch Post Office, Jupally in cash, on BO slips, after verification of pay orders and wage seeker's list submitted by the

Branch Post Office, Jupally. Thus, unless excess amount paid by Sub

Post Office, Kalvakurty, there is no possibility of the accused debiting excess amount in the books of his Branch Post Office. Therefore,

PW.34 Mr. D.Bucha Reddy may be recalled to say about NREGS payments to Branch Post Office, Jupally during the period September.

Page 3 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 294 of 20 25

3.Notice of the petition is given to the respondent and it has filed its counter stating inter alia that the present petition is filed at belated stage of the trial. The collected material evidence demonstrated the modus operandi of the petitioner for misappropriation of the funds by booking excess amount of debits in books of the Branch Office. PW.34, who is the then Sub Post Master, was cross-examined at length on various aspects in general, which is evident from paragraphs 18 to 21 of his (PW.34) cross-examination.

Further all the documents, which are relevant to the present context, had already been collected during the course of investigation and were produced before the Court. Therefore, there is no necessity to recall PW.34 for confronting the documents that may be summoned as all the material documents collected during investigation were brought on record and PW.34 has been cross-examined in respect of the same.

4.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether PW.34 Mr. D.Bucha Reddy be recalled for further cross-examination by the petitioner, as prayed for?

POINT :

6.As seen from the charge sheet, among other allegations against the petitioner, the allegation against the petitioner is he, while

Page 4 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 294 of 20 25 working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master, Jupally, has entered details of account number and amount paid under National

Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in Journals account, without mentioning the name of the account holders and later debited the excess amount in Branch Post Office Account as well as Branch

Office Daily Account against the details of payment mentioned in the

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme journals, and caused loss to a tune of Rs.8,92,173/-.

7.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, to confront the documents to PW.34 and to know whether the petitioner debited excess amount in the books of account of Jupally Branch Post Office and later misappropriated that amount, recalling of PW.34 is necessary for further cross-examination.

8.Leaned Public Prosecutor would submit, all the documents, including the documents sought to be summoned were already collected during the course of investigation and were produced before the Court. He also would submit wage seekers will not come for second time in a month and there is possibility of recalling investigating officer and the documents sought to be summoned are irrelevant and there is no necessity to recall PW.34.

9.It appears the allegation is, the petitioner has shown amount in

Branch Office Daily Account which is in excess of the amount worked

Page 5 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 294 of 20 25 out and paid under NREGS account and misappropriated the difference amount. As such, PW.34 who worked as Sub Post Master,

Kalvakurty Post Office from 2007 to 2011 can be recalled to confront the documents such as pay orders, cheques and wage seeker's list pertaining to NREGS sent to the Branch Post office, Jupally, during further cross-examination by the petitioner. The point is accordingly answered.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed. Issue summons to PW.34

Mr. D.Bucha Reddy, for further cross-examination by the petitioner, by 18.12.2025.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 1st day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

FAC III ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

HYDERABAD

Page 1 of 4Crl.M.P.No. 334 of 20 25

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

CBI CASES: HYDERABAD.

Dated : Monday, the 22nd day of December, 2025.

Present : Sri Dr. T.Raghu Ram,

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

FAC III Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Crl.M.P.No. 334 of 2025

[Crl.M.P.No. 1894 of 2025 (Reg.No)]

in

C.C.No. 25 of 2025

Between : Sri Subhadip Ghosh, S/o Late K.P.Gosh, Aged 56 years, Occ: Addl General Manager, R/o Plot No. 9/B, Nakshatra Township, Balapur, Hyderabad - 500005.

... Petitioner/LW-35

And

The State through Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Hyderabad. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming before me on 15.12.2025 for hearing in the presence of K.Srinivas Reddy - Counsel for the Petitioner and of Sri Dr. Anil Kumar Kompally – Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/ Complainant; upon hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record; and that the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.Petition filed for return of SBI Locker Key bearing No.A89699.

2.The petitioner contends, he is a Listed Witness No.35 in the above case filed against the accused herein. On 11.06.2022, during the course of search conducted at his residence by the respondent,

Page 2 of 4Crl.M.P.No. 334 of 20 25 key of his SBI Locker bearing No.A89699 was seized and produced

before the Court. The said Locker is his Locker containing his

personal valuables which are no way connected with the subject matter of the case. The key is not even required for the purpose of further investigation or trial since charge sheet had already been filed in this case. The non-availability of his Locker Key is causing serious inconvenience and hardship to him. He undertakes to produce the

Locker Key as and when directed by the Court, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the Locker Key is returned to him. Therefore, his SBI Locker Key bearing No.A89699 seized from him may be returned to him.

3.Notice of the petition is given to the respondent and the respondent reported no counter.

4.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Locker Key bearing No.A89699 be returned to the petitioner, as prayed for?

POINT :

6.Version of the prosecution, as seen from the charge sheet, is

Accused No.1 and 2, who are sons of Accused No.10, and Accused

No.11 and 12 entered into criminal conspiracy with Accused No.3, 4, 5 and 6, who are casual employees working on contract basis in

Page 3 of 4Crl.M.P.No. 334 of 20 25

MIDHANI, and also with Accused No.7, 8 and 9, who are also employees of MIDHANI, caused theft of valuable MIDHANI Super

Alloys/material under the cover of auctioned materials on several occasions during the period 2020-2022, thereby Accused No.1, 2 and 10 committed offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w 380 and 381 of IPC and Section 411 and 413 of IPC and also under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused No.3, 4, 5, 6, 11 & 12 committed offences punishable under Section 380 and 381 of IPC and also under Section 120-B r/w 380 and 381 of IPC. Accused No.7, 8 & 9 committed offences punishable under Section 380 and 381 of IPC and also under Section 120-B r/w 380 and 381 of IPC and also Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

7.As seen from the record, on 11.06.2022, during the search of house of the petitioner, who is shown as LW.35 and who was working as Additional General Manager (Purchase) in MIDHANI, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad, among some documents, said Locker Key bearing

No.A89699 was seized and produced before the Court.

8.Admittedly, charge sheet has been filed in this case. As seen from the record, on 11.06.2022, a team headed by Mr. Vivekananda

Swamy, Inspector of CBI conducted search in the house of the petitioner herein and during the search, among certain documents, the said Locker Key bearing No.A89699 was seized and produced as

Page 4 of 4Crl.M.P.No. 334 of 20 25 material object, and that Locker was opened on 05.02.2020, much earlier to the registration of crime in this case, and from the petition it is clear that it has not been opened since then.

9.Considering these, this Court is of the opinion that the Locker

Key bearing No. A89699 can be returned to the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner shall produce the said key as and when so directed by this Court, and under proper receipt and acknowledgment. The point is accordingly answered.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed and the Locker Key bearing No. A89699 be returned to the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner shall produce the said key as and when so directed by this Court, under proper receipt and acknowledgment.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

FAC III ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

HYDERABAD