The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri YEMMIGANUR SOMA SRINATH REDDY, AdVOCAIC fOT thc PEtitiONCT ANd thc Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent' The Court made the following: ORDER a TIIE IIC)NT'BLE SFLI JI.ISTTCE J. SREENI\/,ASFIAO CRIIVI:INAL PETITION No.3637 of 201,25 ORDER This (,) rminal Petition is hled under Se:tion 482 of the Bha:a ti.i a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O2 3 (lbr strort, 'BNSS) bJ, the petitioner/ accused No.I7, seeking arrticipa,:o 1 bail in Crirne No.1O of 2025 of Ii)conornic Offences \VirLg (EOW) Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the ofl :tr:es punisLrable under Sections 3l6(t:,1, 318(4) and 61(il) ol- the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20113 (1br short, 'BNS ) ::n rl S,ection 5 of Telangana State F'rot::ction of Depositc,r',; rI F inancia-l Establishrnents Ac1 , 1999 (for short TSiF'DI'IA'). 2 .I ' 'h l case of prosecution in brief is that the de-facto c,rrr Jrlainant Sri Lalit Soni s/o Subleash Chand Soni, 45i 'r:. rf o Yarnuna Vihar, Delhi a-nd forrr others have lod gt: 1 a written cornplaint to lire Deputy Cornmissir>n:r of Police, Econornic ()ffe;-rce,; Wing, Cyberaba<:: : n 11 .O2.2025 , stating that F'aLcrrn (M / s Capital P:.ot:ction Force Private Limited) is enlSaged in Invoice <li,;<:< r-rr'rting and fi. nctioning frorn 4th floor, Ofhce No.4O5, tl - t) \ Techo Enclave, High Tech Clity, Hyderabad, 2 slnce 2O1S onwards. Invoice Discounting is a finalcial service in which, company can raise funds by selling their invoices to third party financial institutions at a discount rate. The company offered the opportunity to deposit in M/s. Capital protection Force private Limited, under the pretext of providing funds for invoice discounting. The deposit was structured with the promise of returns basis on the invoices they discounted, with clear agreements that specified maturity dates for repayment, including rnterest.

2.2 It is further averred that there are different rnvoice plans such 1) 45 days Invoice plan with rnterest rate betwee n 7lo/o_ l2%o, 2) 90 days Invoice pian with interest rate betwe en 16%o_ 7}o/o and 3) 18O days or more days Invoice plan with interest rate betwee n 2O%o_ 21.95o/o. The having bank account No.1 114O5OO2a6Z of ICICI Bark, Gachibowli Branch and Escrow Accolrnt No.7Z7lO5lg44aaa in the same bank. The depositors have to transfer their deposit arnount to the said account through online. The deposit range is from Rs.25,OOO/- to Rs.5 Crores. company IS z.J It is also stated that the d.e-facto complainant had I 3 deposited an i lnount of Rs.3.83 Crores by tran sferring from his account 11o.0 i 7 1 0 1 508028 of ICICI Bank. The oth er rlepositors namely 1, \/andana Soni has deposited an amoLlnt 'rf Rs.2.36 Crs. by t-rir n s [,:rrit-tg lrom her account No.3L 117 t85('i7 Kokak Bank, ,) Silpa Pappagari has deposited Rs.64,25,000/-, by transferring fi', rtn her account No.12471O1O0O07 143 Union Bank, 3) Daina ltla zerr r,th has deposited Rs.l.27 Crores frore he'r account No.34650 t5,O() 143 ICICI Bank, 4\ Dr.Sarvan,r has deposited Rs.2.55 Or,:rr: s in the name of his mother namelv Rajamani Palanippan an l transferred from his accounl No.501006119388449 HDFC, K,:t :ra I l<am Branch, Chennai. Thus, the total deposit amount con-,e,s To Rs.9,38,25,O00/ -.

2.4 I. i ; also averred that they have rece ivei monthly returns till I 7 ( ) | .2025 and thereafter, no paymerlt ts rec,::ived from the companr'. \, I'rcn the de-facto complainant and others Tisited the office of M /',. t )lpitat Protection Force Private Limite d, t,rey found that the olfi,.e s closed and nobody is lifting their cails. Thus, the managemen. < f M/s. Capital Protection Forcer Privat,: Limited cheated the rle l xrsitors and misappropriated their funrls and caused wrongful Ios:; -,r t}-rem. Hence the de-facto complarnant rerluested to take neces;s,rry legal action against the accusecl pe rsorrs namely Amardeep Krrrr i r & Others. Basing on the said cornplainl, a case 4 in Crime No.lO of 2O2S was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the said offences a J Heard Mr. Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned cot.nsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed yasar Mamoon, Iearned Additional public prosecutor appearing for respondent- State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the petitioner is innocent person and she did not commit any offence as alleged against her, and she was falsely irnplicated in this case as accr. sed No.17. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner except mere allegation that Mr. yoginder Singh and other accused including the petitioner have cheated the d.e_facto cornplainant and the provisions of Section 5 of TSpDFtrA are not attracted to the present case.

5. He fi-rrther submitted that accused No.10, who is a Chartered Accountant, has approached this Court and Iiled Crirninal Petition No.296g of 2O2S seeking anticipatory bail and the same was allowed on OS.O3.2O25. He fr.rrttrer subrnitted that materia_l part of the investigation is cornpleted. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the 5 J conditions \ /t1ich are going to be imposed by tlris Court against hi rn. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatol-y ) ail.

6. Pe. c ontra, Iearned Additional public prosecutor opposed the submiss.,or s made by the learned counse.l for the petitioner and contended theL the petitioner and other accuserl hzLve :;ommitted grave offe n ::c' ud there are specific allegatt ons ag.ainst the petitioner. Dt ring the course of investigation, the Inr..estigation Officers carr e i c know that the petitioner is not an emprloyee and she is a Rr:laticrLship Manager of the company. 1.he peti,ioner and other accus<rd ),lrsons with a malafide intention to grab the huge money fror:-r the innocent public under the guise of investments,, d,::osits and diverted the amount to the suitcase companies ol tlLc accused. This Court granted anticicatcry bail in favour of eLc, .r-rs ed No. 1O, who is a Chartered Accou tta.t, on the sole groun d th a t there are no specrhc aliegatrons agrrinst the petitioner. W hr: t:as, in the present case, the petitior cr zrnd other accused havl: r c,mmitted a grave offence and there ar,,: specil.ic allegations a61air s;t the petitioner.

7. H,:: I rrther submitted that though initiallv LLris Crime was registere,l .:;, the EOW potice Station, taking inro ,;o,s,ideration [he gravit], of ]re offence, this case was translerr:d o Crime 6 Investigation Department (CID), Telangana State and the e investigation is not yet completed and it is under progress. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is every chance to interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage.

8. Having considered the rival subrnissions rnade by the respective parties and after pemsal of the rnaterial available on record, it reveals that the de-facto cornplainant lodged cornplaint on 71.O2.2025. The record further reveals that the petitioner and other accused have established the Cornpany namely M/s Capital Protection Force Private Lirnited in the year 20 1 5 on 09. 1 1 .2O 1 5 under the Cornpanies Act, wherein the petitioner worked as a Relationship Manager and there is specifrc a,llegation leveled against the petitioner and other accused that they have collected huge arnounts from rnore tha-n 7,O56 depositors frorn all over the country including the de-facto cornplainant to a tr.rne of Rs.4,215 Crores, out of which, an amollnt of Rs.792 Crores of principal arnor.rnt and Rs.946 Crores with interest approxirnately, was diverted to suitcase cornpalies of the accused. i / /t 7

9. ',l'h: record further reveals that there i:; specihc allegation aplaL; rst the petitioner and other accused that they have collected huile loney from innocent depositors, under the guise of investme rt, rleposits in their "Invoice discount:ng" business mode1, u')ri,::h was established in the name of "M 7 s Capital Protection F rrrc : Private Limited" in the year 2O 15 and diverted the said amoun. tr suitcase companies of the accusr:d and r-rot repaid the same to t.he riepositors.

10. I r: i s also reveals that now thr: ( )rime is transferr{rc ll c>rn EOW Police Station, Cyberabad to CID, Telangana. I I yderabad and the investig:ttio n i s under progress u itt thern. Therefore, taking into c,rnsrderation the gravily o.i the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipator.T b ail to the petitioner, especiall.z u'hen the investigal.ion s; under progress. 1 1. Acco': di ngly, the Crirninal Petition is dismissr:d. As a s;, :,1ua1 thereto, rniscellaneous aplrlicritions, if any, pendi n1: .n this petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. AMMAJI rDEPU'l Y REGISTRAR ]SEC ION OFFICER To, Cyberabad 1 . The Prl. . urric,r (livilJudge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga ReddyDist- 2. The Stati,rn Hctrse Offider, EOW Cybe (Cyberabad) Policr: Stertion, S Ohe CC to litl YEMMIGANUR SOMA SRINATH REDDY Ad\"ocate [OPUC] ;. iil CCs ic, th,: Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of felangana at 5. Two CD {)oPies Hyderabad [C)LJT] HIGH COUR'I: DATED: 2810312025 ORDER CRLP.No.3637 ot 2025 ,-:= =::- o ? 5 l,tt't 26 r ,'' '\. \i.C (1\( ,i i/ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 8p {\ \ r\\-