← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/7512/2025allowed no costs

Lt Col P Ram Prasad Raju v. The State Of Telangana

2025-06-27J Sreenivas Rao5 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7512 of 2025 Order:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), in connection with Crime No.30 of 2025 of Mulugu Police Station, Siddipet, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 464, 466, 468, 471 and 120(b) r/w 34 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2.

The case of prosecution in brief is that on 31-01-2025 at 10:00 hrs, Dr. A. Bhagwan, Registrar of Sri Konda Laxman Telangana State Horticultural University, lodged a complaint at PS Mulugu. He stated that the Central Government had sanctioned Rs.135 crores for establishing the University between 2014-17, out of which Rs.121.75 crores were allocated for development. Sri Lt.Col.P.Ram Prasad Raju, appointed as Estate Officer on 09-06-2016, sanctioned estimates without following due procedures or approval from the University's TTAC and entered into an altered agreement with M/s.Standard Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., leading to financial loss. Later, Sri P. Narasimha Rao was appointed as Estate Officer on 14-10-2016 but continued the irregularities. He proposed additional construction

::2::

without proper sanction, and the agreement was finalized on 05-122017 under the same terms as the original, indicating collusion. Despite receiving Rs.79.85 crores (including Rs.5.79 crores in price escalation), the contractor filed arbitration claims based on altered clauses. The complainant alleged fraudulent actions and collusion between the contractor, Sri M. Sesha Reddy and his family and both former Estate Officers, causing financial and legal damage to the University. Basing on the same, present complaint is filed. 3.

Heard Mr.N.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Section 409 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioner and the punishment prescribed for the other offences is below seven years. He further submitted that very similar allegations are levelled against accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 in Crime No.33 of 2023 and they have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.5301 of 2025, seeking anticipatory bail and this Court granted anticipatory bail in their favour

::3::

on 23.04.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner is retired Army Officer and he is not having any criminal antecedents. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed for anticipatory bail. 5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed grave offence and the investigation is under progress. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, at this stage, there is every chance to influence the witnesses and to interfere with the investigation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is the former estate officer of M/s.Standard Infratech India Private Limited (for short 'Company') and the said Company was declared as successful bidder in the tender issued by the de facto complainant University dated 21.07.2016. Accordingly, the University had executed two agreements on 03.09.2016 and 05.12.2016 for construction of Administrative Building, Academic Building, Girls Hostel, Boys Hostel and Guest House at Mulugu, Siddipet District and

::4::

for construction of Administrative Building (Block-A) at Sri Konda Laxman Telangana Horticultural University, Mulugu, Siddipet District, respectively. The said Company had executed the work within the time stipulated and the University has not paid the entire amounts, as such, disputes arose between the Company and the University. The record further reveals that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Company invoked the arbitration clause and initiated the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and filed Arbitration Application Nos.230, 231 and 232 of 2023 and the said applications were allowed on 09.07.2024 appointing the Arbitrator and the University filed review petitions in the said arbitration applications and the same were dismissed.

The record further reveals that the Company filed claim statements and the University also filed defence statements before the Arbitral Tribunal and the same are pending. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, very similar allegations are levelled against accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 in Crime No.33 of 2023 and they have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.5301 of 2025, seeking anticipatory bail and this Court granted anticipatory bail in their favour on 23.04.2025. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents.

::5::

7.

Taking into consideration the said facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.4 subject to the following conditions.

1. The petitioner/accused No.4 shall surrender before the Station House Officer of Mulugu Police Station, Siddipet, on or before 08.07.2025, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioner/accused No.4 on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum each.

2. After release, the petitioner/accused No.4 shall appear before the concerned SHO, as and when his presence is required.

3. After release, the petitioner/accused No.4 shall not influence the witnesses or interfere with the investigation.

4. The petitioner/accused No.4 shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482 (2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case. 8.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.

_____________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 27.06.2025 vsl