IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, B. Vijaysen Reddy, JJ.
Radhika Anil Upadhyaya - Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary, Home Department, Brk Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19725 of 2020, 19726 of 2020
Decided On : 25-11-2020
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 177 – Habeas corpus writ petitions - First Information Report – Facts are different to a limited extent – Writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment – Petitioner has filed both these habeas corpus writ petitions on behalf of her husband, in order to challenge his arrest effected by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Control Room, Central Crime Station respondent, in connection with Crime, and Crime on the file of Central Crime Station and also his judicial custody, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of fundamental rights; consequently, the petitioner has prayed that her husband, the detenu should be set at liberty –Held, There can be no quarrel with the observation made by Honble Supreme Court as quoted hereinabove – However, while carrying out the remand duty, the learned Magistrate is not required to hold a mini-trial – Learned Magistrate is required to consider whether the commission of a cognizable offence is mentioned in the FIR or not? Whether the Police is justified in arresting the accused person or not? Whether the Police requires the continuation of the police custody for the purpose of further investigation or not? Or whether the accused person should be sent into judicial custody so as to ensure that the accused person would face the trial as and when called for? Or whether the accused was subjected to torture or not while he was in police custody? Or whether the accused should be set at liberty or not? – Writ petitions are, hereby, dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. - Since the legal issues in both the writ petitions are the same, although the facts are different to a limited extent, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The petitioner has filed both these habeas corpus writ petitions on behalf of her husband, Mr. Anil Karkala Upadhyaya ('detenu'), in order to challenge his arrest effected on 02-10-2020 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Control Room, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, the respondent No. 4, in connection with Crime No. 92 of 2020, and Crime No. 93 of 2020 on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad respectively, and also his judicial custody, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of fundamental rights; consequently, the petitioner has prayed that her husband, the detenu should be set at liberty.
3. Briefly, the facts of the cases are that, the detenu is the Chief Executive Officer of M/s. Trillion Capital Private Limited, Mumbai; he is also an Agent/Relationship Manager of the stock broking firms, namely M/s. Manoj Javeri Stock Broking Private Limited, and M/s. Conard Securities Private Limited, Mumbai. He is arrayed as A-6 in Crime No. 92 of 2020, and as A-5 in Crime No. 93 of 2020. During the year 2017, the detenu approached Mr. Pradeep Yarlagaddam, the complainant, at Hyderabad, introduced himself as an expert in stock trading, and as one of the share holders of M/s. Conard Securities Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Manoj Javeri Stock Broking Private Limited. He lured the complainant to invest in share trading through M/s. Manoj Javeri Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the detenu and the Directors of the said firms assured the complainant that he would receive high rate of returns over his investment. Believing the assurance of the detenu, in the month of September, 2019, the complainant, along with his family members, and others, opened Demat Accounts with different Client Codes (NSE Cash, NSE F & O). On various dates in the year 2017, the complainant and others, transferred an amount of Rs. 7.19 crores for the purpose of share trading. They also transferred Rs.1.55 crores on 03.09.2019. The monies were transferred to the accounts of M/s. Manoj Javeri Stock Broking Private Limited and M/s. Conard Securities Private Limited through their respective bank accounts at Hyderabad. Subsequently, in December, 2019, the complainant requested for redemption of the funds. As there was no response from the offenders, again on 25.01.2020, the complainant requested for withdrawal of the funds. After waiting till February, 2020, he had filed a complaint with National Stock Exchange. As a result, Mrs. Shika Hemang Shah, Director of M/s. Conard Securities Pvt. Ltd., called the complainant, and assured him that the withdrawal of payment would start from 10.07.2020. However, as there was no response, or communication from any of the accused persons, on 17.07.2020, the complainant approached the Economic Offences Wing, CCS, Hyderabad, and lodged a complaint. The complaints were registered on 05.08.2020 and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, it was elicited that the investments made by the victims, including the complainant, were diverted into personal accounts of the detenu, and other co-accused instead of investing in share market. In fact, M/s. Manoj Javeri Stock Broking Private Limited was declared as defaulter in 2017 itself by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai. The detenu, claiming to be an Agent/Relationship Manager of the above mentioned companies, had induced hundreds of clients/investors to open share trading accounts with M/s. Manoj Javeri Stock Broking Private Limited, by sending fabricated trade statements through M/s. Trillion Capital and contract notes. Later on, he, along with other accused, diverted the funds and siphoned off the money of innocent investors. On credible information, on 02.10.2020, the respondent No. 4 along with his staff, arrested the d
Asit Bhattacharjee vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.