The Court noted that the accused was arrested when he came to the police station with respect to investigation in another case.
It was further observed that the notice under Section 41A CrPC was served merely as a formality in this case and there was no compliance with said provision in letter and spirit.
“The accused must have been given the sufficient time to join the investigation, however, he was arrested by the IO at 10:30 PM. This is not a case where the accused has failed to join the investigation. Moreover, the offences in question u/s 294/469/499/500/504 IPC & Sec 67 IT Act are bailable in nature. The only non-bailable offence invoked by the IO is Sec. 505 (1) (b) IPC, however, in view of the fact that the mobile phone of the accused has already been seized and the password has been provided, no further custodial interrogation is warranted,” the Court observed while granting conditional bail to Bereddy.
Additional Public Prosecutor Bhaskar appeared for State.
Advocates Kamran Khan and Omar Huda appeared for Bereddy.
Source: Barandbench
