Back
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Y akhilesh reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2279 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri S.Sharath Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao
Failure to follow procedural safeguards under Section 35 of BNSS invalidated judicial remand; blackmail allegations not sufficiently stated.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 308, 351(1), 351(2), 351(4) & Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 - Quashing proceedings - Petition filed in Cr.No.339 of 2024 against the petitioner’s son for blackmail and extortion - Complaint lacking specifics regarding the accused’s identity - Petitioner's son in custody since 10.02.2025, procedures under Section 35 of BNSS not followed - Supreme Court directions regarding illegal remand referred to - No grounds for quashing proceedings, but conditions imposed for bail granted. (Paras 34-39)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 41-A - Non-compliance of procedural safeguards in arrest and detention examined - Principles reinforced regarding necessity of arrest and procedural adherence emphasized. (Paras 33-34)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations against son regarding extortion and blackmail outlined. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. counsel arguments focus on procedural inadequacies in investigation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial observation emphasizes adherence to procedural safeguards. (Para 24 , 33 , 34) |
ORDER
Heard Sri S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Despite service of notice, none appears for 3rd respondent.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.339 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S. Kothapalli, Karimnagar District. Facts of the case:-
3. The petitioner herein is father of the accused. The offences alleged against the son of the petitioner herein are punishable under Sections 3 08 , 351 (2), 351(1) and 351 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’) and Section 3 (1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 ( for short, ‘the SC&ST Act’). On the complaint dated 29.09.2024 lodged by 3rd respondent, the Police Kothapalli, registered a case in Cr.No.339 of 2024 initially for the offences under Sections 3 08 , 351 (2), 351(1) and 351 (4) of BNS S . During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer added Sections of law i.e. Sections 3 (1) ( r ) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 ( for short, ‘the SC&ST Act’) by way of filing alteration memo dated 08.11.2024.
4. In the complaint dated 29.09.2024 of 3rd respondent, the allegations leveled are as follows:- 3rd respondent elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Choppadandı Assembly Constituency of Karimnagar district from Indian National Congress. Since then, he has been looking after welfare of the people. On 28.09.2024 between 15:04 hours to 15:21 hours, he received whatsapp voice calls from Mobile No. 447886696497 to his mobile No.93466-62310 in which the caller threatened him by blackmailing his personal issues, demanded for payment of Rs.20 lakhs and thereby defame his image by posting such messages/clippings in social media. He further threatened 3rd respondent to kill him if he denies to pay the said amount as demanded. Again he received similar calls on the same day at about 20:18 hours. 20:22 hours, but he did not attend the said calls due to fear. There is severe threat to his life with the unknown caller. On 29.09.2024 at 09:57 hours, 10:43 hours, again he received whatsapp calls from the same mobile number, but he did not attend. On that the caller posted a voice message by 10:45 hours, threatening him. Hence, he requested the police to take necessary action against the unknown caller and protect his life.
5. Sri S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend as follows:-
i. The contents of the complaint dated 29.09.2024 lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the son of the petitioner herein.
ii. In the complaint dated 29.09.2024, 3rd respondent did not mention the name of the son of the petitioner herein.
iii. He did not mention his caste name.
iv. Even then, the Investigating Officer in the subject crime conducted investigation with regard to caste of 3rd respondent and the son of the petitioner and obtained caste certificates.
v. With regard to the very same allegations, P.S. Cyberabad, registered a case in Cr.No.6605 of 2024 against the son of the petitioner herein for the offences under Section 351 (1) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 ( for short, ‘the IT Act’). At the instance of the Investigating Officers in both the crimes, Look Out Circulars (LOC) were issued.
vi. The son of the petitioner was in United Kingdom for the purpose of his employment.
vii. He came to India on 09.02.2025 to attend his mother’s-in-law funeral.
viii. Cyberab
