SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14712

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
Manusurnath Chowdary Veeramachaneneni – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP 13100/2024



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13100 OF 2024

DATE : 27.04.2026

Between:

Manusurnath Chowdary Veeramachaneni

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

PS CCS DD Hyderabad

…Respondent

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is instituted under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”),

invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the order

dated 10.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 3684 of 2024 in C.C. No.

16060 of 2019 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad at Nampally and to permit him to travel abroad/Malasia for

limited period of 2 (Two) months.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 4 in C.C. No. 16060 of

2019, which arises out of Crime No. 167 of 2017 registered for

offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 24(1)(b) of the Emigration Act,

1983.

##PAGE2##

NTR,J

CRLP_13100_2024

2

3. The present petition challenges the dismissal of Crl.M.P. No.

3684 of 2024, wherein the petitioner sought interim custody of his

passport bearing No.Z5178061 and permission to travel to Malaysia for

employment related obligations.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

employed in Malaysia and, pursuant to the bail conditions imposed by

the trial Court he surrendered his passport on 27.04.2024. Since then,

the petitioner has remained in India and has been complying with all

bail conditions. It is further contended that his presence is urgently

required in Malaysia for professional reasons, including handing over

company assets, completing contractual obligations, and settling

employment benefits. The necessity of travel is thus bona fide and not

intended to evade the judicial process.

4.2. It is argued that the trial Court, while dismissing the petition,

failed to adequately consider relevant factors such as the petitioner’s

awareness of the pending proceedings, his subsequent compliance

with bail conditions, and the absence of any deliberate attempt to

abscond. The trial Court appears to have been influenced by the earlier

issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) and Look-Out Circular

(LOC), without appreciating that the petitioner’s conduct post arrest has

been cooperative and compliant.

##PAGE3##

NTR,J

CRLP_13100_2024

3

4.3. Learned counsel further submits that the proceedings before the

Trial Court have remained at the stage of issuance of summons to

witnesses since 2024, primarily due to administrative constraints,

including the absence of a regular Presiding Officer. In these

circumstances, it is contended that permitting the petitioner to travel

abroad for a limited period of two months would not prejudice the

prosecution.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the

petition in principle, fairly submits that the petitioner has been regularly

attending Court after being enlarged on bail. It is also conceded that

the trial has not progressed beyond the stage of summons to witnesses

and that there has been no substantial advancement in proceedings.

Accordingly, the matter is left to the discretion of this Court.

6. Upon perusal of the material on record and consideration of the

rival submissions, this Court finds that while the pendency of criminal

proceedings and the petitioner’s status as an accused are undisputed,

his subsequent conduct assumes significance. The record indicates

that after execution of the NBW and issuance of the LOC in 2024, the

petitioner has diligently attended Court and complied with all conditions

imposed upon him.

##PAGE4##

NTR,J

CRLP_13100_2024

4

7. It is a settled principle of law that the right to travel abroad forms

part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as

recognized in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.

Further, in Suresh Nanda v. CBI (2008) 3 SCC 674, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that impounding of a passport must be j

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top