THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.341 OF 2026 DATED: 02.04.2026 Gade Innaiah … Appellant – Petitioner – Accused No.1 Vs.

The State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad, Ministry of Home Affairs. … Respondent – Respondent – Complainant This Court passed the following:-

JUDGMENT

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.LAKSHMAN)

1. Heard Sri V.Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Kamatam Rajitha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA, appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 01.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.514 of 2026 in RC.NO.04/2025/NIA/HYD of P.S. National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad, passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

3. Appellant is accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime.

4. The Investigating Officer has arrested the appellant on 21.12.2025. 5. The Investigating Officer has filed an application vide Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2026 in the said crime seeking police custody of the appellant. The same was allowed on 16.01.2026 by the learned Designated Court granting police custody of the appellant for a period of five days i.e., 19.01.2026 at 10.00 a.m., to 23.01.2026 till 04.30 p.m.

Learned Designated Court also imposed certain conditions.

6. However, the said police custody was cut short prematurely and they have produced before the Court on 21.01.2026 itself.

7. Thereafter, the appellant has filed an application seeking bail on 22.02.2026. The same was posted for orders on 09.03.2026 and from

09.03.2026 to 13.03.2026.

8. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer has filed another application vide Crl.M.P.No.514 of 2026 in the said crime seeking custody of the appellant on the ground that the subsequent to the premature completion of the earlier police custody, several witnesses were examined, several financial transactions of the appellant were scrutinized. Several facts have come up regarding which the accused needs to be confronted. Several suspicion transactions have been identified for which only the appellant can offer explanation. The data extracted from the electric devices seized in the case has been provided by CFSL on 20.02.2026. Voluminous data has been thoroughly analyzed and several incriminating documents, chats etc were found, which again needs to be confronted with the accused, as such the appellant is the only person who can offer explanation to the contents found therein. It is further contended that the said information cannot be ascertained/extracted unless the appellant is interrogated one to one in police custody of NIA.

9. Appellant filed counter in the said application contending that though he was produced before the Court on 21.01.2026, the bail application filed by him was posted for orders to 09.03.2026 and it was adjourned to 13.03.2026. The Investigating Officer filed the present application only on 12.03.2026 to defeat his right of bail. The Investigating Officer has not mentioned satisfactory reasons seeking police custody second time. There is delay of 60 days in filing second application.

10. Vide impugned order learned Designated Court allowed the said application holding that the Investigating Officer has specifically stated the satisfactory reasons while seeking police custody second time and provided a reasonable explanation regarding the need to confront the appellant with newly analyzed incriminating electronic evidence and suspicious financial transactions are sufficient to grant custody to the NIA.

11. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

12. Sri V.Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the learned Designated Court did not consider the aforesaid contentions raised by the appellant herein. He has also placed reliance on the Principle laid down by this Cour