A'> IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010553882024 TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2RR18 OF 2024 Between: Mutchakarla Rambabu, S/o. Late Dalayaa, Finance, M/s. Shri Chandra Bulk Cargo Services Pvt. R/o. D.No.4-20, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada, A.P. 533 001 Aged 35 years, Occ; Manager Ltd., Kakinada, A.P. Nagarjuna Bank Colony, Near Prasad Mansion, ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Superintendent of Police, CBI-ACB-Visakhapatnam Superintendent of Police, D.No.1-83-21/4, Visakhapatnam-530 017. 2. The Station House Officer, P.S. ACB-CBI, Visakhapatnam. 3. Shri Anil Kumar Dabas, Dy. Superintendent of Police Visakhapatnam. O/o. M.V.P. Colony, Sector-8 CBI/ACB ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Circumstances stated i pleased to issue a Writ, Order ' of Writ of Mandamus declaring the respondent in illegally manhandling the Petitioner of India praying that in the in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be or Direction, more particularly one in the nature high handed behaviour of the 3'^'^ and seizing the Petitioners mobile as illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to not to harass the petitioner who is called as witness in Cr.No. RC 22(A)/2024, dated 05.10.2024 on the file of ACB/CBIA/isakhapatnam and return the illegally seized mobile phone of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2A Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to take action on the Petitioner’s complaint dt.26.11.2024, on illegal and high handed manhandling the Petitioner Respondent No.3. by lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to follow due process of law for examining the petitioner and to examine him in the presence of an advocate as and when required in connection with Cr.No. RC 22(A)/2024, dated 05.10.2024 file of ACB/CBIA/isakhapatnam . on the lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to return the Petitioner’s mobile phone seized on 25.11.2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.MADHAVI LATHA KATASANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K.A.NARASIMHAM The Court made the followingiORDER praying that in the circumstances stated APHC010553882024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 28818/2024 Between: Mutchakarla Rambabu ...PETITIONER AND The Superintendent Of Police and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.MADHAVI LATHA KATASANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KANARASIMHAM 2.PSPSURESH KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Kondaveeti Ravi, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt.K.Madhavi Latha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2, and Sri K.A.Narasimham, learned counsel for the 3'^^ respondent. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the high handed behavior of the 3'^'^ respondent in manhandling the petitioner and seizing his mobile phone, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not V M .e to harass the petitioner who dated 05.10.2024 was called as witness in Cr.No.RC22(A)/2024 on the file of ACB/CBI, Visakhapatnam. 3. In the affidavit, it was contended that the petitioner has been as Manager-Finance with M/s Shri Chandra Kakinada. A notice working Bulk Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. under Section 179 of BNSS from the Deputy vide RC.0362024A0022-CBI/VSKP Superintendent of Police dated 18.11.2024 was served the authority on 25.11.2024 at 14:00 hours 25.11.2024. The 3^^ on the petitioner calling upon him to attend before ■ The petitioner appeared on respondent beat the petitioner; petitioner's hearing was impaired, and the petitioner's cell without any acknowledgement. The petitioner injuries caused by the 3^^^ respondent. With these petition is filed. as a result, the was taken away was treated in hospital for the allegations, the above writ 4. a) A counter-affidavit ... .. 3'” respondent denying the negations made by the petitioher in the affidavit. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner was examined for the bribe amount paid to Sri P.Bharat Kumar on 05.10.2024 for the petitioner onward was questioned same. It was payment to Sri Y.Srinivasu (A1). When regarding the mobile phone, the petitioner produced the checked, found incriminating data about the bribe oi Chandra Bulk Cargo Service Pvt. - given on behalf of M/s Sri Ltd., being shared with his counterpart was confronted with such data, sweating. The petitioner admitted that (Kittu Swamy, SCBC). When the petitioner he got perplexed and started the cash was sent on behalf of the through a Hawala channel, and had no food si company to Sri Kittuswamy at Mumbai The petitioner informed that he was on a fast. since morning and requested to complete the proceeding was decided to further check on 26.11.2024. As it was about 6.00 p.m., it the mobile phone on the next day. As there was a possibility of deleting or destroying the data in the phone, the petitioner willingly and voluntarily left his phone in the possession of 3^*^ respondent, without turning up before the authority on 26.11.2024, started giving false complaints. The seizure proceedings of the mobile phone on 30.11.2024 were conducted under CCTV footage in the presence of an independent witness, and the petitioner refused to sign. The seized mobile phone has been sent to CFSL, Hyderabad for extraction of data and to give an expert opinion on any kind of tampering, addition or deletion of data from 25.11.2024 at 18:00 hours onwards. The mobile phone was produced before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. Later, after securing the phone from the Court, it was deposited with the Director, CFSL, Hyderabad vide acknowledgement dated 10.12.2024. However, the petitioner. b) In respect of specific averments made in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit concerning beating the petitioner, the same was denied. 5. A separate counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In Paragraph 10 of the affidavit, it was pleaded that in pursuance of allegations made by the petitioner against the 3'^ respondent, a necessary departmental enquiry was initiated and the same is in an advanced stage. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 across the bar would submit that said enquiry will be completed in 15 to 20 days. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and would submit that in the charge sheet/final report in Cr.No.RC22(A)/2024 filed by the investigating agency, the petitioner was not shown as accused, however the mobile phone belonged to the petitioner was seized and it was shown as one of the material objects. 7. I Thus, as seen from the allegations and counter allegations regarding seizure of the cell phone, the said cell phone is one of the material objects filed along with the charge sheet before the Court. Once the same is filed along with the charge sheet, as one of the material objects, this Court cannot direct the respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the same to the petitioner. The petitioner shall necessarily approach the concerned court with a proper application. 8. Concerning the specific averment made by the petitioner regarding respondent, the counter 9. rd the alleged harassment/beating up by the 3 affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 would disclose the initiation of an enquiry. and the same is in an advanced stage. Since the departmental enquiry is in progress, without going into other dispute questions of fact, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders per law on the complaint made by the petitioner, within four weeks from today. 10. Regarding seizure of the cell phone, since the cell phone of the petitioner is one of the material objects, the petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate application before the concerned’ jurisdictional Court. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU assistant REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SE To, 1. The Superintendent of Police, CBI-ACB-Visakhapatnam, O/o. Superintendent of Police, D.No.1-83-21/4, M.V.P. Colony, Sector-8 Visakhapatnam 530 017. 2. The Station House Officer, P.S. ACB-CBI, Visakhapatnam. 3. Shri Anil Kumar Dabas, Dy. Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB Visakhapatnam. 4. One CC to Smt. Madhavi Latha Katasani, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri K. A. Narasimham, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri PSP Suresh Kumar, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 7. Three CD Copies, ssb V V-* HIGH COURT DATED:17/06/2025 ORDER WP No.28818 of 2024 ^ 0 5 JUL 2025 J rr»ntSectiQaXi5 €: <>» Pi DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS