THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5909 OF 2009 18th August, 2009. BETWEEN: C.V.RAMAKRISHNA MURTHY.. PETITIONER V. STATE OF A.P. .. RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5909 OF 2009 O R D E R: 1. The petitioner-C.V.Ramakrishna Murthy is A3 in Crime No.143 of 2009 of CCS, Hyderabad registered for the offences under sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC. 2. The petitioner joined TATA Tele Services Ltd (for short TATA) as an Engineer Switching (Network Operations) in May, 1998. The accusation levelled against the petitioner is that he along with two others who have been arrayed as A1 and A2 colluded and conspired together to defraud TATA by illegal call routing through internet set up by them and thereby caused revenue loss TATA to a tune of Rs.2.39 crores. They set up a call router connected to internet and the calls originated through this router lands in the switch board of TATA and in turn get routed to (ILDO) international long distance operator and thereafter matures at the destination country international operator’s switch. During this illegal process the correct number of the caller/maker of the call cannot be traced and the CDR will record the modified calling number, which is not a genuine one of the call originator. Due to this activity TATA will not be in a position to raise bills for the usage but TATA will be billed by the international operator for the ILD (international long distances). 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A3 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred from Khan Latif Khan office to Sanathnagar on 1.7.2008 and therefore he has no access to any of the equipment in the circle office situated at Khan Latif Khan Building and in which case the petitioner cannot be made responsible for misuse of any equipment in Khan Latif Khan Building. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is suffering from serious ailment and there is every likelihood of ailment being aggravated in the event of police taking him into custody. Learned counsel in elaborating his arguments contended that the petitioner consequent on his transfer to Sanathnagar on 1.7.2008 had no access to the equipment which records international calls and thus for any misuse of the equipment of TATA, the petitioner could not be held responsible. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner being in possession of technical expertise and knowledge misused the same and thereby caused loss to TATA to a tune of Rs.2.39 crores and the case is under investigation and if the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail at this stage there is every possibility of his destroying the evidence and interfering with further investigation. A further submission has been made that the statement of the petitioner came to be recorded by the employer wherein he detailed the role played by him in diversion of international calls made to CUBA. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the statement of the petitioner has been obtained by the employer putting him under fear of threat and therefore no credence can be given to such a statement. 7. TATA Tele Services Limited which is a part of TATA group is granted licenses by the Government of India through Department of Telecommunications (DOT) to provide Unified Access Services (fixed and mobile telecom services) in various states including the State of Andhra Pradesh. It has the circle office of Andhra Pradesh at Khan Latif Khan Building. As per the license conditions a call that is dialed by the customer to any international country has a definite process. International call that is dialed lands in ILDO switch. The ILDO hands it over to the operator in the destination country. During the process number of the caller and the number it connected are recorded in the form of call data records (CDR). Based on these CDRs, ILDO raises interconnect user charges bill on TATA for the calls that land in the ILDO network which TATA need to pay as per the arrangement between the operators and as required by Telecom Authority of India (TRAI) Regulations. 8. According to the version of the defacto complainant, the petitioner and two other persons who have been arrayed as A1 and A2 set up a call router connected to internet and the call originates through this router which lands in their switch board and in turn gets routed to ILDO and thereafter matures at the destination country. During this illegal process, the correct number of caller/maker of the call cannot be traced and the CDR will record the modified calling number, which is not a genuine one of the call originator. 9. The CD file placed before me also shows the statements made by the petitioner before the H.R Manager of TATA. The role played by him is detailed in his statement. The investigation is under process, and admitting the petitioner to anticipatory bail at this stage, in my considered view, hampers further investigation. It is also to be noted that A1 and A2 approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail. The application filed by them i.e. Crl.P.No.5369 of 2008 ended in dismissal on 3.7.2009. 10. In view of the gravity of the offence and pendency of the investigation and the offence being highly technical, I deem it not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. 18th August, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5909 OF 2009 18th August, 2009.