Chirag Sharma vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Chirag Sharma, filed a criminal petition before the Telangana High Court seeking relaxation of a condition imposed by the Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. The condition, imposed in Crl.M.P.No.416 of 2024 in Crime No.86 of 2024, directed the petitioner to appear before the Station House Officer every Monday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM for four months or until the filing of a charge sheet, whichever is earlier. The petitioner argued that he had been complying with the condition for over three months, had not violated it, and that the travel from Delhi to appear before the police caused hardship. The State opposed the relaxation, alleging the petitioner's non-cooperation with the investigation and serious allegations of evading GST amounting to crores of rupees by misleading companies, while claiming to be a Chartered Accountant.

Held

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition. The Court considered the serious allegations leveled against the petitioner, including the evasion of State GST amounting to crores of rupees by misleading companies while impersonating a Chartered Accountant. The Court also took into account the State's submission that the petitioner's presence was required for the investigation, which was to be conducted throughout the country. Given the gravity of the offense and the necessity of the petitioner's appearance for investigation, the Court was of the considered view that it was not a fit case for relaxation of the condition imposed by the trial court. Therefore, the petition seeking relaxation was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed by the Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, directing the petitioner to appear before the Station House Officer on every Monday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM for a period of four months or till the filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier, should be relaxed in the interest of justice, considering the petitioner's compliance for over three months and the hardship of travel from Delhi? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he had been diligently complying with the imposed condition for over three months without any violation. He further submitted that due to the necessity of traveling from Delhi, the condition caused him significant hardship and sought its relaxation. Respondent's contention: The State opposed the relaxation, asserting that despite the petitioner's appearance, he was not cooperating with the investigation. The State highlighted the gravity of the alleged offense, involving evasion of State GST amounting to crores of rupees, and the need for the petitioner's presence for a nationwide investigation.