The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated ih the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.7 in FIR No.416 of 2025 Dt. 10-03-2025 on the file of Gachibowli P.S, Cyberabad for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2), 61(2) of BNS on such terms and cond itions. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4485 OF 2025 Between : Bajjuri Ramesh, S/o Venkateshwara Rao Age. 35 years, occ. auto driver, R/o 6- 28, Narsapuram, Jagannadhapuram, Khammam diskict. ...Petitioner/Accused No.5 f ANO 1 2 State of Telangana, rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad Muvva Ramesh, S/o Muvva Pullaiah Chowdary Proprietor of NSP lnternatinal and Managing Director of Frumari Agri Goods PVt Ltd and Teja Food lndustries LLP R/o A 1204 Aparna Tbwers Kondapur Hyderat5ad Telangana R2 impleaded as per court order dated 84-2025 in lA No 1 of 2025 made in cRLP NO.4485/2025. ... Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds qf Criminal Peiition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.5 in FIR No.416 of 2025 Dl. 10-03-2025 on the file of Gacfribowli P.S, Cyberabad for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5i 316(2),61(2) of BNS on such terms and conditions, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4537 OF 2025 Between: Jerry Ashok Kumar, employee, No 7 -1111 , district. S/o Venkateswara Rao, age. 28 years, occ. private Buggfapadu village of Sathupally inandal, Khainmam ...Petitioner/Accused No.6 AND 1

2. State of Telangana, rep, by its Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad Muwa Ramesh, S/o Muwa Pullaiah Chowdary Proprietor of NSp lnternatinal and Managing Director of Frumari Agri GoodsPVt Ltd and Teja Food lndustries LLP R/o A 1204 Aparna Towers Kondapur Hydera6ad Telangana R2 impleaded as per court order dated 8-4-2025 in lA No 1 of 2O2S made in cRLP NO.4537/2025 I ... Respondent 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 to the Petitioner/Accused No.6 in FIR No.416 of 2025 Dt. 10-03-2025 on the file of Gachibowli P.S, Cyberabad for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) 316(2),61(2) of BNS on such terms and conditions. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.s.chalapathi Rao, counsel representing Sri TARUN RAM AITHAM ,Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr.syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Mr.Vinod Kumar Deshpande, Senior counsel representing Mr.R.chandra shekar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER q I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRTMINAL PETITION Nos.4483 4485 a nd,4537 of 2O2S COMMON ORDER: These Criminal petitions are filed under Section 4g2 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by rhe petitioners, ',vho are arrayed as accused Nos.7, 5 and 6 rcspectively, seeking anticipatory bail in crime No.416 of 2o2s of (iachibor;r,li Police Station, Cyberabad Ctommissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5),316(2) and 6,1(2) of the Bharatiya Nya.',a Sanhira,2023 (r3NS). I Since accused Nos.5 to 7 seeking anticipzrtory bail in Crime No.4l6 of 2025, all the three criminal petitir>r,rs rt,ere heard together and are being disposed of by a common order

2.' The case of the prosecution is that on 1O.03,202S at 2O 15 hours one Mr. Muwa Ramesh, proprietor of NSp International and Malaging Director of Frumar Agri Foods l)vt Ltd and Tejas Food Industries LLp, the de facto complainant hcrein, stated that he have been in the business of manufacturing and exporting grocery products since 20 10. They employecl the petitioner herein in €O15 as a .Junior Executive, who later became an 2 Export Manager. Over time, he, in connivance with transport and freight forwarding companies, misappropriated company funds through fraudulent means, including: 1). Inflating transportation costs Falsely increasing the number of lorries required for shipments. 2). Falsifying ocean freight expenses Exaggerating costs and diverting excess funds to personal accounts. 3). 3). Colluding with transporters and shipping agents Receiving illegal kickbacks from service providers. 4). Hiding communications Excluding the company management from negotiations to conceal fraudulent transactions. Their internal audit found that 60-70 lakhs were trapsferred to his relatives accounts, and he used the misappropriated funds to purchase 20 acres of land and residential assets in Hyderabad and surrounding vil1ages. Hence, lhe de facto cornplainant requested legal action against the petitioners artd other accused.

3. r Heard Mr. S. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2lde facto complainant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned I J Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No'1 State. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed the offence and' they have lalsely implicated in the present crime' The entire allegations are levelled against accused No ' L only and the petitioners are not having any connection with the company of respondent No'2' The petitioner/ accused No'S is native of Narsapuram Village working as an auto drivei and eking out his livelihood and he has nothing to do with the company of respondent No'2 ald there is no specific role attributed against him petitioners / accused Nos'6 and 7 are residing in Hyderabad working as software employees and they are a-lso not havtng any The roleinconnectionwiththecompanyofrespondentNo.2and there are no specific allegations against them to attract the ingredients of Sectj.ons 318(4), 316(5)' 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS

4.1. He further submitted that neither respondent No'2 nor the prosecution has not placed any iota of evidence that accused I I No.ltransferredtheamountsbelongingtorespondentNo.2 Company into the accounts of the petitior Respondent No'2 r (\ 4 simply relying upon the computer generated bank statement alleged that the amounts belong to his company transferred at the instance of accused No.1 in the accounts of the petitioners and other accused. He also submitted that accused No' 1 was arrestedandhewasenlargedonbailandentireinvcsligationis completed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. The petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate r,vith the investigation and abide by the conditions' q'hich are going to imposed by this.Court' Unless the petitioners are granted anticipatory, they will put to great hardship' t\

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that accused No 1 has involved in cheating and criminal breach of trust and transferred huge amount of more than Crore of respondent No 2's company the accounts of the petitioners herein and other amounts to accused, with al dishonest intention' He further submitted that respondent No.2 is a Proprietor of NSP International and Managing Director of Frumar Agri Goods Private Limited and Teja Food Industries LLP', wherein accused No 1 is working as Export Manager in connivance with transport and freight forwarding companies, misappropriated comparty funds through -7 ) fraudulent means including inflating transportation costs, falsilying ocean freight expenses, exaggerating costs and diverting excess funds to personal accounts of relatives, colluding with transporters and shipping agents, receiving illegal kickback from service providers, hiding'e-mail ald other official communications, excluding tl" company management ald export department from negotiations to concea-i fraudulent tran sactions.

5.1. He further submitted that accused No.1 in connection rvith the petitioners and othe. "".,rsed amounts into their accounts. The petitioner/ accused No.6 persons transferred huge received an amount of Rs. i,20,45,000/- and petitioners/ accused Nos.S and 7 are received an amount of Rs.5,38,745/-. The petitioners/ accused Nos.5 ald 7 have not filed,any piece of evidence that how they received the huge arnounts into their accounts and they have not ltied any document that the amounts beiong to them. He also submitted that the petitioner/ accused No.7 is the own brother of accused No.l and he received huge amount belongs to the respondent No.2 Company from accused No. 1. The petitioner/ accused No.7 is the brother-in-law of accused No. 1. , \ )

5.2. He a-lso submitted that the petitioners and accused No.1 have colluded with each other and with an criminal conspiracy, the petitioners have facilitating the routing the mone1, from thc transporters, shipping freight forwarders and thereby routed money via transfer to the accounts of the petitioner and other accused to the benefit of accused No. 1. The investigation is under progress. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory. bail, they vr,'ill interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses and the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the petitioners and other accused have committed grave oflence ,,r.ith the collusion of accused No. 1 and they have misappropriated respondent No.2's company funds through fraudulent manner and the investigation is under progress. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will influence the witnesses and interlere with the investigation and they are not entitled lor grant of bail

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and after perusal of lhe material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2. who 7 is the Proprietor of NSP lnternational and Managing Director of Frumar Agri Goods Private Limited and Teja Food Industries LLP., Iodged a complaint on 10.03.2025, wherein he specifically stated that the :Lbove said company has been in thc business of manufacturing and export grocery and processed lood products since 20 10. In the said company, accused No. I was an employee from 20 15 as a Junior Executive ar-rd later he became and Expert Manager. Accused No.1 in connivance with transport and freight forwarding companies, misappropriated company lunds through fraudulent means including inflating transportation costs, lalsifying ocean lreight expenses, exaggerating costs and diverting excess funds to personal accounts of relatives, colluding with transporters and shipping agents, receiving iilegal kickback from service providers, hiding e-mail and other official communications, exciuding the company management and export department from negotiations to conceal fraudulent transactions, ancl he colluded with the petitioners ald other accused with a criminal conspiracy and misappropriated huge amounts into the accounts of his relatives and who had purchased agricgfural lands residential estates in Hyderabad and in surrounding areas even in Vissalnapet Village of Andhra -\ 8 Pradesh. In the above said complaint, respondent No ' 2 statcd that accused No.1 approximately Rs.60-70 lakhs wcre transferred into the accounts of the petitioners and other accused persons. According to the counter-affidavit liled b,r' the Sub-lnspector of Police, Gachibowli Police Station, an amount ol Rs.94.35 lakhs approximately transferred to the account of the petitioner/ accused No.6 and arr amount of Rs 5,38,471/ - transferred to the accounts of the petitioners/ accused Nos 5 and

7. Whereas, according'to the learned counsei for the respondent No.2, an amount 'of Rs' 1,2O,45,O00/- was transferred to the account of the petitioner/ accused No'6 and also transferred an the accounts of the amount of Rs. 5,38,745 l- petitioners/ accused Nos.5 and 7 by relying upon the additronal material papers i.e., bank statements of the petitioners/ accused Nos.5 to 7 and the said amount belongs to respondenL No 2 Company. Learned counsel for the petitioners has disputed the above said bank statement on the ground that the said documents are only computer generated copies and not authenticated documents and respondent No'2 has not filed any audit report of his comPanY. =\ 7

8. Whether the petitioners have received the amounts from accused No.1 or any other accused belonging to respondent No.2 company or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is at the initial stage. It is also relevant to mention herein that accused No.1 was arrested and thereafter he r.r,as enlarged on bail. Basing on granting of regular bail in favour of accused No.1, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for grant of anticipatory bail, especially when the investigation is under progress.

9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grar-rt anticipatory bail to the petitioners, especially when the investigation is under progress.

10. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, sha-ll stand closed. t To, SO/. MOHD.ISMAIL REGISTRAR \DEPUTY t\lr r SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad. 3. One CC to SRI TARUN RAM AITHAM, Advocate [OPUC] - I

4. One CC to Mr.R.Chandra Shekar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad.[OUT]

6. Two CD Copies SVS/PSL / t +_- ,, b. ' , *.Iirei"". ., . ... r - {.1 i#1i.i-i;;r.:' -.-'-.ir#'llliE[r8i. .;...,tl HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ^! /{r{,'. /./!..' // :! i{it 2 s ;uL N,:, COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.4483,4485 AND 4537 ol2O25 'i '. i).. \.....-.,. ' -::_-:: 2AZ5 * t DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS / //t Z/7 ,//5