APHC010397922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8247 Between: 1. THANIKESH ARAV YEARS, R/O BLOCK NO. 1 SINGAPORE. B. MADHU (24630), FLAT NO. 103, HIBISCUS RESIDENCY, OPPOSITE KAVURI HILLS GRAND PROJECT, CHINNAKAKANI (V), MANGALAGIRI (M), 9948165557. 1. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, Directorate of Enforcement, Visakhapatnam, Rep by the Special Public Prosecutor for Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue, 39 Madhavadhara, VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B.MADHU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO ( SC FOR E D ) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8247 OF 2025 THANIKESH ARAVINDAN, S/OG. ARAVINDAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O BLOCK NO. 1-E,23-49, CANTONMENT ROAD, SINGAPORE. B. MADHU (24630), FLAT NO. 103, HIBISCUS RESIDENCY, OPPOSITE KAVURI HILLS GRAND PROJECT, CHINNAKAKANI (V), MANGALAGIRI (M), GUNTUR (D), A.P. CELL ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, Directorate of Enforcement, Visakhapatnam, Rep by the Special Public Prosecutor for Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue, 39 Madhavadhara, VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO ( SC FOR E D ) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 49, CANTONMENT ROAD, SINGAPORE. B. MADHU (24630), FLAT NO. 103, HIBISCUS RESIDENCY, OPPOSITE KAVURI HILLS GRAND PROJECT, GUNTUR (D), A.P. CELL- ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, Directorate of Enforcement, Visakhapatnam, Rep by the Special Public Prosecutor for Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue, 39-33-93/2, Madhavadhara, VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh- 53 RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 484, 483(1), 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to relax the condition imposed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, who had ordered to executed a bond for Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and directed the Petitioner to appear before the Court on the next date of hearing in Crl.M.P.No.258 of 2025 in S.C.M.U.No.125 of 2021 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Respondent had filed a detailed Counter-Affidavit denying the averments of the Petition and mentioned about the facts of the case, modus operandi of the alleged offences. As the Petitioner did not co-operate with the investigation and respond to summons issued under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court was requested to issue Non Bailable Warrant. The Petitioner has not filed the similar petition before the learned Trial Court itself, even though, he got a legal remedy. Filing of the Petition before this Court is only to delay the proceedings and wasting the precious time of this Court and it is urged to dismiss the Petition. 3. Heard Mr. Bodduluri Madhu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/ Directorate of Enforcement. 4. At Para No.3 of the Petition, the Petitioner contended that no summons served on him in the Sessions Case. Whereas, the Respondent in his Counter-Affidavit at Para No.3 it is mentioned that summons was served through e-mail I.D of the Petitioner on 23.11.2022. The e-mail I.D was furnished by the Petitioner, vide letter, dated 21.09.2022. Therefore, it has to be deserved that the contention of the Petitioner that no summons was served on him is baseless. 5. At Para No.4 of the Petition, he contended that the Petitioner was not aware of the date of hearing, as such, he could not attend before the learned Trial Court on 05.09.2024. Hence, the Trial Court was constrained to issue Non Bailable Warrant against the Petitioner. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that the Petitioner is duty bound to know the next date of adjournment, either himself by going through the e-Courts Case Status Information or by contacting his counsel on record before the learned Trial Court, the pleaded ignorance of the Petitioner in this regard is not acceptable and tenable also. The Petitioner filed an application seeking for cancellation of Non Bailable Warrant issued against him, but the learned Trial Court, while recalling the Non Bailable Warrant directed the Petitioner to execute a bond for Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties and directed him to appear on the next date of hearing. 6. The Petitioner contends that he is bed ridden and he is not in a position to move his residence, due to medical condition to the neck and lower back. He filed certain Medical Certificate to that effect. 7. As seen from the letter dated 03.02.2025 issued by Alpha Chiropractic, Singapore in favour of the Petitioner, there is nothing grave, serious and alarming imminent health condition to the Petitioner. 8. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned is partially relaxed, directing the Petitioner to execute a bond for Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) with two sureties for like sum and the Petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court, within two (02) months from this day, and thereafter the learned Trial Court may proceed in accordance with law. 9. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.09.2025 KK