The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail, directing the p-olice to enlarge the petitiorer on bail in the event of arrest in'crime No. 1g of 2025 under section 408, 420, R/w Section 120-B IPC of the PS CCS , Hyderabad' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriK-Mohan, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent' The Court made the following: ORDER TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4363 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ,BNSS,) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crime No. l8 of 2025 on the file of the p.S. Central Crime Station Hyderabad, r'egistered for the offences punishable under Sections 4C8,420 rlw 120-B of Indian penal Code, 1960 (for short .lpC,).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the de_facto complainant has filed a complaint on 13.02.2025 alleging that the petitioner's husband who is accused No.l and was working for the Complainant's Company, namely, MSC Agency India private Limited, had colluded with accused No.2, a partner of SLV Shipping Services, who was associated with the cornplainant,s company unttl 2023. As per the complaint, bilts of lading were released despite of non-payment by certain NCCs, including SLV. During the reconciliation process, the complainant,s company found that inr..oices totalling Rs. 1 g,22,45,53 3.07 I _ had been raised, 2 out of which, accused No.2 had paid only Rs.15,21,70,470.171- ail the same was received by the complainant's company, leaving a shortfall of Rs.3,17,45,667.241-. Upon requesting reconciliation with accused No.2's ledger, they were unable to veri$, the missing amount. Subsequently, meetings were held with accused Nos.l and 2 in November and December, 2024. The employment of accused No.l was terminated on 24.11.2024 and accused No.2 admitted transferring Rs.2.93 crores fi'om their ICICI bank account to the petitioner's bank account between January, 202Q and September, 2023. Based on this, a case was registered in Crime No.18 of 2025.

3. Heard Sri K.Mohan, leamed counsel for petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed the atleged offences and he was falsely implicated in the above crime. He further submitted that the ingredients of Section 408 and 420 rlw 120-B of I.P.C. are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that since the punishment *w :- .,./' 3 prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioner are less than seven years, the Investigating Officer issued notice to the petitioner under Section 41-A of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)/Section 35(3) of BNS on 04.03.2025. pursuant ro the same, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and fumished all the documents. In spite of the same, the Investigating Officer is trying to arest the petitioner in absence of any specific allegations against him. 5' Per conh'a, leamed Additionar pubric prosecutor srbmitted that the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure prr:scribed under Sectic,n 4 I -A of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)/Section 35(3) of BNS and the guidelines issued by the Apex Courl in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharl. 6' By wal of reply, leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wilr cooperate with the Investigating ofrrcer as and when r,:quired and will also provide any information/ documents sorrglrt by him to conclude the investigation. '(2014) 8 scc 273 4

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the rnaterial available on record, it reveals that the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioner are less than seven years and the Investigating Officer issued notice to the petitioner under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)/Section 35(3) of BNS on 04.03.2025 and pursuant to the same, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Ofhcer and submitted all the required documents.

8. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the crirninal petition, with a direction to the Investigating Officer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41- A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)/Section 35(3) of BNS and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). It is made clear that the petitioner/accused No.3 shall cooperate with the investigation officer for the investigation and make herself available to him as -:;t: 5 and when required and also provide the information/docu:nents as sought by th,: investigation officer to conclude the investigation.

9. If the petitioner/accused No.3 fails to cooperate ,,vith the investigation officer for investigation, the investigation officer is at liberty to tak,: action against her in accordance with law.

10. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal perition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if an.1,, stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// I Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUW REGFTRAR secnoNrrrcen \-" 'l . The Xll Additronal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad' 2. The station l-louse officer, central crime Station Police stalion, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ,lf Telangana at District. Hyderabad. |CUTI

4. One CC Sri l(. Mohan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies kam,/PSRq HIGH COURT DATED:0310412025 / , ORDER tre STArg { [4 APB zffi t-) v C) .L CRLP.No.4363 of 2025 * )Fs r arc DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION cr\