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
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.