Chirag Sharma vs. High Court For The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Chirag Sharma, filed a criminal petition seeking relaxation of a condition imposed by the Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad. The condition, imposed in Cr.M.P. No. 432 of 2024 in Crime No. 88 of 2024, directed the petitioner to appear before the Station House Officer on every Saturday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM for four months or until the filing of a charge sheet. The petitioner argued that he had been complying with the condition for three months, traveling from Delhi, and sought relaxation due to the hardship. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the relaxation, alleging the petitioner's non-cooperation in an investigation involving evasion of GST amounting to crores of rupees by misleading companies, and that the investigation was nationwide.

Held

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition seeking relaxation of the condition imposed by the Principal Special Judge. The Court considered the serious allegations leveled against the petitioner concerning evasion of GST amounting to crores of rupees and the need for his appearance before the police for the ongoing investigation. The Court found that the gravity of the alleged offense made it unsuitable for relaxation of the condition. Therefore, the Court held that it was not a fit case for granting the requested relaxation. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition, meaning the petitioner must continue to comply with the original order of appearing before the Station House Officer every Saturday.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed by the Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad, directing the petitioner to appear before the Station House Officer every Saturday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM for four months or until the filing of a charge sheet, should be relaxed in light of the hardship faced by the petitioner. (Question of fact and law, turning on the court's discretion under Section 483(1)(B) of B.N.S.S.). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he had been diligently complying with the imposed condition for the past three months without any allegations of violation. He highlighted the inconvenience and expense of traveling from Delhi to appear before the police and therefore sought relaxation of this condition. Respondent's (State's) arguments: The State argued that despite the petitioner's appearance, he was not cooperating with the investigation. The State alleged that the petitioner was involved in a grave offense of evading GST amounting to crores of rupees by misleading numerous companies while posing as a Chartered Accountant. Given the nationwide scope of the investigation, the State asserted the necessity of the petitioner's presence for effective investigation and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.