Finding no jurisdictional error or exceptional circumstances warranting interference, the panel dismissed both writ petitions.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference at the investigation stage and dismissed two pleas challenging search, seizure, and other proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice S. Chalapathi Rao refused to entertain the pleas filed by Abdul Rahman Sharfan and another petitioner, as well as Lateef Rahman Sharfan, who challenged the legality of search and seizure operations carried out under Section 17 of the Money Laundering Act and the recording of statements under Section 50. The petitioners contended that they were merely caretakers of properties belonging to a third party and had no ownership, control, or beneficial interest in the assets under investigation. It was argued that possession of photocopies of registered documents, in such capacity, would not amount to possession or projection of proceeds of crime. In the connected matter, the petitioner also challenged the seizure and continued retention of his mobile phone, asserting absence of any linkage to a scheduled offence. The ED, however, argued that the ECIR stemmed from a scheduled offence involving alleged illegal alienation of government Bhoodan lands through fabricated documentation and manipulation of revenue records. It was contended that the search was conducted by a duly authorized officer and that the seized material, including digital devices, bore a direct nexus to proceeds of crime. The retention of the mobile phone, it was pointed out, had also been confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The panel observed that the Act envisages a complete adjudicatory hierarchy, including remedies before the Appellate Tribunal and further appeal to the High Court on substantial questions of law. It observed that the petitioners had tried to bypass this statutory mechanism by invoking writ jurisdiction at the threshold. On the scope of interference, the court noted that at the stage of investigation, the requirement is the existence of “reason to believe” based on material available with the authorised officer, and not proof beyond doubt. It emphasized that courts ought not to undertake an examination of sufficiency of material or conduct a mini trial at the stage of search and seizure. The panel further clarified that the offence of money laundering is independent in nature and not restricted to persons named in the predicate FIR, provided there is material indicating involvement in processes connected with proceeds of crime. With regard to the plea of the caretakers, the court recorded that the investigation had revealed a money trail involving substantial amounts and that the role of the petitioners could not be ruled out at the preliminary stage. On the issue of seizure of the mobile phone, it held that digital devices containing communication and transactional data fall within the ambit of material liable to be seized if relevant to the investigation. Finding no jurisdictional error or exceptional circumstances warranting interference, the panel dismissed both writ petitions.
Verdict reserved in ransom murder case
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court reserved its verdict in a criminal appeal challenging conviction and life imprisonment for alleged abduction and death of a minor boy. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was dealing with an appeal filed by three accused. According to the prosecution, the child stepped out of his home saying he would return in 10 minutes but never came back. Later that night, a ransom call demanding ₹10 crore was allegedly made to his parents, with threats to kill the boy. The prosecution stated that before any ransom could be paid, police found the body of the child stuffed inside a carton box near a petrol pump and hotel in Secunderabad. It was further stated that the body was covered in a white sheet, plaster taped across the face, and hands tied behind his back. Appearing for one of the appellants, Counsel Mohd. Azhar argued that the death of the child was not intentional but occurred due to suffocation, even before the ransom demand could materialise. Counsel further contended that the entire conspiracy was masterminded by A1, and that the appellants were wrongly entangled. He pointed out that the role of one of the appellants was limited to allegedly disposing of the vehicle of the minor at the instance of A1, and by the time he returned, the boy was already dead. There was no intention, knowledge, or participation in the killing. It was brought to the notice of the court that A1 had been released on bail on the ground of being a minor. Counsel further argued that the FSL report allegedly attributed the ransom call to A1, and also pointed to defects in witness examination and failure to properly link the appellant to the conspiracy. After hearing extensive arguments, the bench reserved the matter for orders.
Woman accused in QNet case gets bail
The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused of inducing investments in QNet and further abetment of suicide. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Pabba Mamatha, arrayed as Accused No. 10 in the FIR registered at Gowraram Police Station, Siddipet district. The case was booked for offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. It was the case of the prosecution that documents recovered from the deceased’s room revealed borrowings through loan applications, participation in online betting and gaming platforms, and a deposit of Rs 4,00,000 with QNet. The petitioner was alleged to have acted as a “motivator” associated with QNet and to have induced individuals to invest, thereby abetting the suicide. Counsel for the petitioner contended that she was falsely implicated and that no specific allegations established her direct role in the alleged offence. It was further argued that other accused in the same crime, including individuals described as company directors, have already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. The state opposed the plea contending that there were specific allegations against the petitioner and that custodial interrogation was required for the purposes of investigation. The judge observed that similar relief had been granted to other accused and that the record, at this stage, did not prima facie establish a direct nexus between the petitioner and the death. The judge accordingly allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail holding that the material on record did not disclose a direct connection to the alleged abetment of suicide.
