The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Pctition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSSJ by the petitioner/ accused No. 17, seeking anticipatory baii in Crirne No.11 of 2O2S of Econornic Offences Wing (trOW) Police Station, Cyberabad, registered Ibr the offcnces pr.rnishable under Sections 3I6(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2O23 (for short, 'BNS') and Section 5 of Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, l99g (for short "ISPDFEA').

2.7 Ttte case of prosecr.rtion in briel is that the

de-facto complainant Sri Rohit Kumar Morla s/o Sudhir Kurnar Morla, 30 yrs, r/o L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District lodged a written cornplaint to the Deputy Cornmissioner of Police, Econornic Offcnces Wing, Cyberabad on I | .O2.2C.25 , stating thzrt F-a1con (M / s Capital Protection Force Private Limitcd) is engaged in Invoice discounting and fr.rnctioning frorn 4th floor, Ofhce No.4O5, HUDA Techo Enclave, High Tech City, Hyderabad, 2 since 2O15 onwards. Invoice Discounting is a financial service in which, colTrpany can raise funds by selling their invoices to third party l-rnancial institutions at a discount rate. The company offered the opportunity to deposit in M / s. Capital Protection Force Private Liinited, under the pretext of providing funds for invoice discounting. The deposit was structured with the prornise of rettlrns basis on the invoices they discounted, with clear agreernents that specified maturity dates for repayrnent, including interest.

2.2. It is further avcrred tLrat there are different invoice plans strch are 1) 45 days Invoice Plan with interest rate between I lo/o- l2o/o, 2) 90 days Invoice Plan witLr interest rate betwe ert 160/"- 1 8o/o and 3) 1 80 days or more days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 2O"/o- 21 .95o/o. The colnpany is having bank accollnt No.1114O5OO2a67 of ICICI Balk, Gachibowli Branch and Escrow Accolrnt No.7777O58448aa in the same bank. The depositors have to transfer their deposit arnount to the said account through online. The deposit range is frorn Rs.25,OOO/- to Rs.5 Crores.

2.3 It is also stated that t!r'e de-focto complainant had 3 deposited an amount ol Rs. i8,8O,OOO/- by transferring from his account No.501003326663 13 of HDFC Bank, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam. The parents and brother of tine de-facto complainant havc also deposited about Rs.58,500,000 in the same company by transferring funds from their bank account Nci.05881OOl I181 of Bank of Baroda, Chakala Branch; account No.91301OO4678174 ot Axis Bank, Rajamata Jijiya Bhai Road, Mumbai and account No.111405OO2867 of ICICI Bank, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. The de-facto complainant further stated that, in addilion to his lamily mcmbcrs, somc othe r depositors name ly Mayank Candwani and 55 othcrs have also dcposited about Rs.21,81,83,120 0O by transl'er lrom therr individual bank accounts.

2.4 [t is also averred that they have received monthly rcturns Lill 17 .O1,.2025 and thereafter, no payment is received from tlre company. When the de-focto complainant and others visited the ofllce of M / s. Capital Protection Force private Limited, thev found that Lhc offrce is closed and nobody is lifting their calls. Thus, the managcme nt of M/ s. Capital Protection Force private Limited cheated the depositors and misappropriated their funds and caused wrongful loss to them. Hence the de-focto complainant requested to take nccessary legal action against the accused persons. Basing on tl're said complaint, a case in Crime No.1 I of 2025 was registered 4 against the petitioner and other accused for the said offences 3 Heard Mr. Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and she did not cornrnit any offence as alleged against her, and shc was falsely implicated in this case as accu sed No. 1 7 . Thcre arc no spccific allegations against the petitioner except mere allegation that Mr. Yogindcr Singh and other accused inclr-rding the petitioner have cheated the de facto cornplainant and the provisions of Section 5 of TSPDFtrA are not attracted to the present case. 5 He further subrnitted that accused No. 1O, who is a Chartered Accountant, has approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.2962 of 2025 seeking anticipatory bail and the sarne was allowed on 05.O3.2O25 He further subrnitted that material part of the investigation 1S cornpleted. The petitioner 1S ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be irnposed by this Court W 5 against hirn. Hence, the petitioner is entitled lor grant of anticipatory bail 6 Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contenclecl that the petitioner and other accused have committed grave offence ancl there are specific allegations against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, the lnvestigation Officers camc to knour thaL the petitioner is not an cmplovee and she is a Reliltionship Manager of thc company. The petitioner and other accused persons with a malafide intention to grab thc huge money from the innocent public under the gnise of inr.e stmen ts / de posi ts and diverted the amount to the suitcase companies of the accused. This Court granted anticipatory bail in favour of accused No.10, who is a Chartered Accountant, on the sole grour-rd that there are no specific allegations agalnst the petitioncr. Whereas, in the present case, the petitioner and other accused hatve committed a grave offence and there are specilic allegations against the petitioner.

7. Hc further submitted that though initialy this Crime u,as registered by the EOW Police Station, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, this case was transferred to Crime Investigation Dcpartment (CID), Teiangana Slate and the 5 investigation is not yet completed and it is under progress- Therefore, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is every charce 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 made by the respective parties and after perusal of the rnaterial available on record, it reveals that the de-facto cornplainant lodged complaint on 11.O2.2025. The rccord further reveals that the petitioner and other accused have established the Cornpar-ry namely M / s Capital Protection Force Private Limited in the year 2075 on 09.11.2015 under thc Cornpanies Act, wherein the petitioncr worked as a Relationship Manager and there is specific ailegation levcled against the petitioner and other accuscd that they have collected huge amounts frorn rnore than 7,056 depositors frorn a-11 over the country including Lhe de facto complainant to a tune of Rs.4,215 Crores, out of which, an arnount of Rs.792 Crores of principal amount and Rs.946 Crores with interest approximately, was diverted to suitcase companies of the accused.

9. The record further reveals that there is spccific Y 7 allcgation against the petitioner and other accused that they have collected huge money from innocent depositors, under the gulse ol investment/ deposits in their "lnvoice discounting" business model, u,hich u'as established in the name of "M/ s Capital Prolection liorce Private Limited" in thc year 2015 and diverted the said amount to suitcase companies of the accused and nol rcpaid the same to the dePositors. is also reveals that now the Crimc is

10. transferred lrom EOW Police Station, Cyberabad to CID, Telangana, Hydcrabad and the investigation is under progrcss wit,I-r Lhern. Thereforc, taking into consideration tl-re gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory baii to the petitioner, especially when the ir-rvestigation is under progress.

11. Accor<ling1v, the Crirninal Petition is disrnissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaleous applications, if any, pcr-rding in this petition stand closed- SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR I To,. //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. The Prl. Junior Civil Judge Cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.nagar.

2. The Station House Officer, EOW Cyb (Cyberabad) Police Station , Cyberabad. 3. One CC to Sri Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad M louTl

5. Two CD copies. HIGH COURT DATED:28/03/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3640 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED oc 1HE Sr4 ( o^ () o 17 JUN UE \ I (. On S- l]a rC\ ::::,.. i I i I I I I I I I I I I T 6 b b