CRLA/341/2026 of Gade Innaiah alias Gade Inna Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 2 April 2026

1. ay b9-qtgaseo to stay the execution of the rmpugned porice custody ordlr dated 01t04t2026 in crt.M p. No. 5't4 0f 2026 in Rc-4/2ozslNttuHyD prr."i by the court of IV Addl. Sessions Court Cum Special Court for NIA Cases at Nampally_ counsel for the Apperrant : Sri v. pattabhi senior counser representing Sri. Kamatam Rajitha, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Vishnuvardhan Reddy Special Public Prosecutor for NIA The Court delivered the following:

-I-HE HIGII ClOtlltT FOR THB STATB OF TEt,,r {GANA AT HYDERABAD THII IIoN'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSi IMAN AND -tIIE IIoN'I}LT] JUSTICE I].R.MADHUSI.]I) IIAN RAo CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34I OF'2( 26 DATED: 02.04.2026 Gadc Innaiah . . . Appcllant Pr:tition: Accusecl No. I Vs. -l-he State lepreserrtctl b1' Deputv Supe rinte nclcnt ot- Police, National Irrr estiqalion .\gency, Hyderabad, Ministrv ol Home..\lllils. ... Respondent Rcspond: tt Cotnplairtant Ihis ( oLrrt 1la\sc(l tlrc lirlltlu ing:- I I lealcl Sr i \'.t) JTJDGMENT rlttr rht lTon'ble Sri.Justice KLAKSIlil.l\ leamed Senior CoLrns:l represcttting attabh i, VishnLrvardhan Redcly-, lealned Special Public Plos::utor lor NlA, appearine Ibr thc rcs;rondent.

2. 'fhis appeal is prel'elred challenging the order cle r C 01.04.202(r in Crl.M.P.No 51,1 ol'2026 in RC.NO.04/2025AIIA/HY1) rl P.S. Narional Ms.Kauratarn [taiitha. lcarned counseI for thc ap;:llant ancl Sri

\

Investigation Agency, Hyderabad, passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Appellant is accused No. I in the aforesaid crinle '1. The lnvestigating Officer has arrested the appellant on2l .12.2025

5. The Investigating Officer has filed an application vide Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2026 in the said crirne seeking police custody of the appellant. The same was allowed on 16.01 -2026 by the learned Designated Court granting police custody of the appellant lol a period of livc days i.e., 19.01.2026 at 10.00 a.m., to 23.01 .2026 titl 04'30 pm' Lcamed Designated Couft also imposed cerlain conditions'

llowever, the said police custody was cut shorl pretrtaturely and they have produced before the Couft on 21.01.2026 itself'

7. Thereafter, the appellant has flted an application seeking bail on 22.02.2026. The same was posted lbr orders on 09'03'2016 and lrom 09 .03 .2026 to 13 .03 .2026.

8. ln the meanwhite, the Investigating Officcr has trted another application vide Crl.M.P.No.S14 of 2026 in the said critne seeking custody of the appetlant on the ground that the subsequent to the J prernature completiotl of the earlier police custody, s: reral witnesses u,ere exarnined. sleral tlnaucial transactions of the rppellant were scrutinized. Scvctal Iacts havc come up regarding u I i :ir the accused rreeds to bc coutioitted. ScVcral suspicion transa('L t trs have been identitled tor u'hicli onll the appellant can offer explar rtiorl. -I'he data extracted tl'on-r the ctcctric devices seized in the case ltlr becn provided bv CFSI- on 10.01.1016. \'olutninous data has been thort ughly analyzed and sevclul inclirninaLing docLrnents, chats etc were ftrttr cl, rvhich again needs to bc confioutecl u'ith thc accused, as such the app€ lant is the only person who czLr.r ol'l'cr erplanation to the contents for-rr I therein. It is asce fiained/cr t |a ctecl unlcss tlie appellant is interrogatt t one to one rn police custocly ol NIA (). Appellrrnt lllccl countcl in the said application ontcnding that though hc rras proclucecl bclbre the Court on 2l .t) )026, thc bail application lllcd br hinr rras posted for orders to 09.01 . r)26 and it was adjotLrned to l-i.01.1026. 'l-he Investigating Officer 1i ed the present application onlr on 12.03.2026 to defeat his rigl t of bail. ]'he Investigating O['tlccr has not rnentioned satisfactory furthel contcnclccl that the said inlot'matiorr cannot be l lasous seeking police custody second time. There is delay of 60 days in filing second application

10. Vidc intpugned order lealned Designated Cou( allovr,ed the said application trolding that the lnvestigating Olficer has specifically statcd the satisfbctory reasons while seeking police custody second time and provided a reasonable explanation regarding the need to conlront the appcllant "vith newly analyzed incriminating elcctronic cvidence and suspicious financial transactions are sulficient to grant custody to the NIN ll. Ciha[lenging the said order, the appellant prefcrred the prescnt appcal

12. Sri V.Pattabhi, learned Senior Counscl would contend that thc leanrcd Dcsignated Courr did not considcr the alolesaid contentiorls raised by the appellant herein. He has also placed leliance on thc Princrple Iaid down by this Court in thc case ol No.ssarrr Moltntnntel Yunus Vs.The Slale of Telangtnal. In the aloresaid ordcr, this Cor.rlt cor-rsidered the contention of the appellant therein that in the second application filed by NIA seeking policc custody, tl.rey l.ravc specificalll' mentioned that the Investigating Officer in the subject crime has ' crl.A.No.E29 ot )(D3. d,atcd 29.02.2024

) thoroughly interrogated the appellant therein durinr- police custody, appellanl uas silcnt. ('onsidering the said lacts and ir: ) the right of the appellant Lo rcrnairr silent as pcr ALticle 20 (3) of C-() r ititution ol. lndia, rve lravc' allori ctl thc said Appeal, sct aside the orcle r ]ated 29.09.202i thlough w'hich lcalncd Designatcd Court granted poli: r custody second tr lne ln data ext-racted lionr thc electlic devices seized in tI) case has been

13. But. thc lacts no rhe present case ale slightlr rliflerent. In thc application [llcc1 br the [r.rvestigating Officer, NlA. there is specific contention that srrbscclu,--nt to premature completion .rl earliel police custody, scveral u itncsscs u,t-rc examined, several llu r rcial transactions of the accused \\ct c scrutinizerl. l-here is also mention 'ith regard to the provided b1 ('l- St on 10.01.1016. 'I.he said data has I r e n voluminousll analyzed and several incriurinating documents, chat: etc were lound 'l-herefble, thc principle Iaid dorvn in the said judgment f-acts in the said judgrnent are slishtlr tlilterent to thc facts of the preserrt ,-ase.

14. Admittedlr, irrvcstigation is pending in the sub. tc I crime. l-here is dispute with lce.ald to thc principle that applic.r,irn llled seeking police ctrstody scctrr.rd tirnc w,ithin stipr.rlated time in t: rns of Unlar,",ful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1867 is rnaintainable. The ; rid principle rvas \l also taid down by this Court in the afores aid Nossam Mohamnted Yunust . l5.Adrnittedly,tlreInvestigatingofficerliastlledtlreafor.esaid application seeking police custody second tirne within tirnc lines' it is maintainable. Ir-r thc present case, they have specifically rnentioned reasons. however, they have not mentioned the number of witnesses exarnined subsequcnt to plelnature completion ol earlicr police custodl" the number of trausacrions etc. Specifically, in paragraph No. l0 of the said application. Further there is mention with regald to exatniuation of witnessessubsequenttoplematurecornpletionofear.Iicr.policecustodl. financialtransacticlns..I.hercisspccificmetltiorrr'i,ithr.cgardtodata provided on CF'SL dated 20'02'2026 and analyzation ol the said incriminating docutrrents including chats etc On considelation of the said aspects only'. the learrrcd Dcsignated Court allowed thc said application filed by the Investigating Olficer and granted police ctrstody second tiure for five days i.e.. tiom 02.04.2026 at 10.00 a'm', to 06'042026 tilt 04'i0 p.m., on in-rposition o1'ccrtain conditions' Tl-rere is no ct ror in it'

16. In the light of the same, we are not inctincd to interfere with thc impugned order passed by the learned Designated C]ourt, this Appeal is liabte to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is disrnissed Howevcr' II

Investigating Otficer shatl strictly tbllow the conditions rnposed by the learned Designated Cor-rrt in the impugned order

17. During the coursc o1' healing, it is brought to llr notice ol this IS CoLlrt that the appc llarr t sultering u'ith spine probl,,'rr, lre underwent operation tu'ice, he is aged about 64 years and lre lequi i s third surgery, which is schedulecl on 04.04.2026. l lorvever. it is lor re appellant to seek bail by' tiling proper rnedical leporls and it is lir. the Designated Court to consider the satrc 1 8. During fhe cour-s,,' ol' hearins, it is also brought to re notice of the (lourt that the bail application f iled b1' him lvas dismisst,l on 13.03.2026.

19. At this stagc-. Sri V.l)attabhi, learrred Senior ( ounsel fol the appellant, on in st.r'tLct ion s, u,ould submil that therc are llo proper facilities in NIA offlce , thelelbre, appe llant may bc interrogated irr .he.iail itself.

20. Wheleas Sri P. \i ishnuvardhan Reddv Iearnecl Special Public Plosecutor tbr NtA. orr instnrctions rvould submit that \ I \ Office has all the f'acilities and rvill uoI cause any-, iuconvetticnce ,, the appellant. Investigating Ofllcer u,ill cnsure all the lacilities to the ap rcllant 21 . At this stage, Sri V.Pattabhi, learned Senior ( ounsel for the c appellant, seeks a dircction to Investigating Officer It. said crirne t.o interrogare the appellant lrom 10.00 a.m to 05.00 p.m. considering his age and ailtnents

22. Considering the agc ol- thc appellant i.c., 65 years and thc ailments which he is t-acing, the tnvestigating officer is ditected to intcrrogate thc appeltant lrom 09.00 a.rl., to 05.00 p.m., other conditions imposed in the impugned order reurains unaltered. L) With the abor,e observations, this Appeal is disposed ol-' As a sequcl, tnisccllaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closcd //TRUE COPY// sD/- N c H srsJtili'#Hs,[iR a SECTION OFFICER To,

1. J.

E A The lV Additional Sessions Judge' Hyderabad (With-records' if any) The lV Additional s"tt'o* iour.t cum Special Court for NIA Cases' at )iTTy; to the special. Public Prosecutor' Hish court for the State of f"rrngrn" at HYderabad (OUT) The superintenden*'.ration]r rnvestigation Agency porice station, Hyderabad One CC to Sri. Kamatam Raiitha' Advocate IOPUC] Two CD CoPies DI-/PSL o{t) \ )

I I HIGH COURT DATED: 0210412026

JUDGMENT

,/ oI \ : -.\ 1-,1, b I ,rtr. .\ ./1 ./ . l \ ') 1' + to t_ \o CRLA.No.341 ot 2026 (- + 1vg 4r )+ l DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ,P $q I t-