HYDERABAD: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti of Telangana High Court on Friday granted bail to Saranala Sreedhar Rao, the ‘tainted’ managing director of Sandhya Conventions and Constructions & Estates Private Limited.
This is the second High Court respite for the realtor in three days.
Rao was arrested in Bangalore by Telangana police on November 17 following a FIR lodged against him on a complaint by Chaithanya Krishna Murthy Gogineni, a designator partner of Rowa & Company Associates LLP at Raidurgam police station. He alleged that the petitioner has sold two office units in Sandhya Techno-1 and later the same was encroached upon by the petitioners after joining hands with Incredible India Projects Pvt Ltd.
Rao approached the High Court on Thursday, for bail under Section 439 of CrPC. However, in the absence of the remand report, the petition was adjourned to Friday.
Justice Lalitha expressed displeasure at the functioning of the investigation officer of Raidurgam police station, who, in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, took custody of Rao. The judge advised the public prosecutor, Prathap Reddy to urge senior police officials to sensitise their staff about the Criminal Procedure Code.
M.S. Prasad, senior counsel representing the petitioner, complained about the highhanded behaviour of the police. He said that the petitioner was arrested in Bangalore by police in civil dress without following due procedures. He expressed fears that PT warrants could be issued against his client.
Meanwhile, public prosecutor Pratap Reddy argued that the bail petition itself was not maintainable. But as the court was inclined to hear the case on its merits, he said that there are 17 other cases and complaints against the petitioner, including allegations of cheating people. The police had no other option but to arrest him immediately. He also submitted that the petitioner was absconding from the time he got the first court relief.
Justice Lalitha wondered why the petitioner was not arrested without issuing 41a notice when there were criminal antecedents. She took note of the fact that the Raidurgam inspector had served notice and arrested the petitioner on the same day in another case and that the concerned magistrate had rejected the remand faulting police.
The judge said “The conduct of the inspector makes it clear that he is unaware of the criminal procedure and Supreme Court guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar case”.
The judge directed the Inspector to file a counter, responding to the violations.
