High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, through PS EOW, Team-|, CCS, DD, Hyderabad rep., by its public Prosecutor High Court For the State of Telangana, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminil petition, the High court may be pleased to release the Petitioner/ Accused on bail in crime No. 112 of 2019 dated 23.05.2019 of PS EOW, Team-|, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, Telangana; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri LAKSHMI KANTH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, Addl. public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent; The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.44zlo of 2o25 ORDER: This criminal petition is frled by petitioner/ Accused under Sections 48O and 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 112 ot 2Ol9 of EOW, Team-[, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 42O lPC, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999-

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.05.2019, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner approached him to invest some amount in business stating that he will get huge profits. Believing his words, the complainant invested Rs. 17,O0,OOO/- to the petitioner. Like"r'ise, the petitioner also approached the friends of the complainant and asked them to invest huge amounts in MLM business stating that they will get huge ! I I I I ! I I ! I : 2 profits. Nearly 7O persons invested about Rs.gO to Rs.90 lakhs in MLM business of the petitioner. For few days the petitioner shows profits in the business and later he went underground by dubbing innocent peopre in the name of Perfect Capitai Firm. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No. 112 of 2O19 was registered for the above said offences. 3. Heard Sri Lakshmi Kanth, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was fa_lsely implicated in the present crime. He further subrnits that there are no a_llegations much less specific allegations to attract the ingredients of the provisions of Sections 4O6 and 420 lpc, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 0f the prize chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999. He further submits that though the complainant lodged the complaint on crrme was registered on 23.O5.2019 and

28.o3.2018, i .,/ /, ,/ 3 material part of investigation is already completed' He further submits that the petitioner was arrested on

06.03.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody and that he is ready and wiliing to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions that are going to be imposed bY this Court.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has committed grave offence and misappropriated more than Rs.8O to Rs'90 lakhs and that investigation is under progress. At this stage, tJle petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

6. Having considered the riva-l submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner has misappropriated huge arnount and that investigation is under progress.

7. It is relevant to mention Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as uncier 4 "37. Offences to be cognizable and non- bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of r97 4),-- (a) every offence punishatrle under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shal1 be released on bail or on his o'am bond unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been 8lven Ern opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ri) where the Public Prosecutor opposes tl.e applicaLion, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilt-v ot such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (21 The limitations on granting of bail specfied in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminat Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741 or any otlter law for the time berng in force on granting of bail." In vierv thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates

8. that offences involving commercial quantities be non- bailable, reqldnng reasonable grounds to believe that the I I l i i i I i I 1 : I 5 accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed Pending miscellareous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 331'J19[?59+[h. / /fTRUE COPY" seh*^'oFFrcER To, i tr =d{$ltffigffi ruii.$fu,{',i*,: ",

6. Two CD CoPtes VSM/?SL HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 I I ( oSTHES a_) J'. 18 JUt 206 ? ,L a. ,i -: t1 ; a I I ! ORDER CRLP.No.4440 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 5lt