The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.7 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 55 of 2025 on the file of EOW Team - Vl, CCS DD Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri tvl.V.Subba Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: GOMMON ORDER 7F.@ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI\IAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.732O and 7322 ol 2025 COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal petitions are filerl by the petitioners / accused Nos.4 and 7 respectivel,,, seeking anticipato ry bail under Section 482 of Bharatii,a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in the event of their arrest, in connection with Crime No.55 of 2025 on the tile of EOW Team-VI, CCS DD, Hyderabad, registered for r jre offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2'), 338 and 3a0(2) of l3haratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). H,'nce, these two Criminal Petitions are clubbed together and dis posed of by way of cornmon order.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, ir; that the petitioners along with the other accused induced ,he de facto complainant by introducing Accused No.1 as the lvlanager of the SBI Srressed Assets Branch, Koti, and promist:d to deliver auctioned residential plots, open plots, and gold 'r,lm SBI at better prices and collected an amount to the t L-rne of Rs. 6,42,78,O0.QJ,- by submitting fake and fabricatt:d payment 2 proofs, such as SBI challans, demand drafts, and letters purportedly issued by various departments of the Government of Telangana, the Reserve Bank of India, the Ministry of Finance (Government of India), the GST Department, etc., through hand delivery and WhatsApp. The petitioner apart from cheating threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3. Heard Mr. M.V.Subba Reddy, iearned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent,state.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime so1ely based on the alleged confession statement given by Accused No. 1. He further submits that the de-facto complainant, in her complaint, has not made any specihc allegations against the petitioners. The entire aliegations are levelled against the Accused No. 1 only that he received the huge amounts and cheated her. i i I I ,,-**Xttit.*ttt!tt . .'.*.t- .'-; ..1:, ;r - r-r.lr 3

5. He further submits that during the course of ':)r lrded the investigation, the Investigating Agency r€ statemerrts of L.Ws. 1 to 4. L.W. 1 is the de-facto ::omplainant, and in h er statement, she reiterated the same : llegations as made in thc complaint. Insofar as the statement:, I-.Ws.2 and 4 are concerned, they are also victims, however, lhey have not made any allegations against the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel also submits that the pcti tioners have not received an)' amount from the de-facto cot-nltlainant or other v;ctims, nor forged or executed an1 documents. Therefor,:, the ingredients of Section 338 of the BNS are not attractec.. The remaining offences are punishr:ble with an imprisonment of up to seven years only. 7 . He further submits that Accused No. 1 I'ri'Ls filed an Insolven,:y Petition, i.e., I.P. No.13 of 2025, whicrh is pending before the Additional Judge, Small Causes Cou L't-, City Civil Court, :Iyderabad, wherein the petilioners, .he de-facto complairrant, and others have been made par$ respondents. In the said Insolvencf petition, Accused No. I specifically \- stated that he had borrowed money from the 1:etitioners as 4 well as the de-facto complainant. The Insolvency Petition was filed even prior to the lodging of the present complaint by the de-facto complainant and it is still pending. Once the Insolvency Petition is pending before a competent Civil Court, the initiation of criminal proceedings at the instance of the de- facto complainant is not permissible under law.

8. He further submits that the implication of the petitioners as accused persons is solely based on the confession statement given by Accused No.1 to the Investigating Agency during police custody. In the absence of any other material evidence, the said confession statement cannot be taken into consideration. He further submits that Accused No. 1 was arrested on 29.04.2025 and subsequently he was enlarged on bail, and that entire investigation has been completed except filing of the charge sheet. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents and they are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory -trV 5

9. Per contra, the learned Additional Rrbli: Prosecutor submits that the petitioners have committed a :lrave offence and at the instance of accused No.l, they havr: received a huge amount of Rs.2O crores from the victims. The allegations levelled against the petitioners is that in collusion with Accused No. 1, thcy cheated the victims under thr: pretext of providing auctioned properties, such as, resirlential plots, open plots, and gold from SBI at lower prices, ur;ing fake and fabricate d clocuments.

10. He further submits that Accused No. 1 ]rzrs been in judicial custody for more than 63 days. T'aking into consideration of the said fact only, the Court l'r1olr. granted Regular Bail in favour of the Accused No.1. 1 1. Ht: furthe r submits that during the course of investigzLtion, the Investigating Agency came to ],:now that an amount of Rs. 75,O0,0O0/- was transferred by ,\ccused No.1 to petiti()ner/A4 and the said amount belongs tr;, the victims. Similarl'r, Accused No.l transferred a huge am:)unt into his own accounts. The investigation is under pr()F;rcss. At this stage, if the petitioners were granted anticipatorv bail, they 6 will interfere with the invesLigation and also influence the witnesses. Basing on the said grounds, the petitioners are not entitled to seek anticipatory bail.

12. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that based on the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant dated 23.O4.2025, the present crime was registered on 26.O4.2025. It is not in dispute that the complaint does not mention the names of the petitioners.

13. The de-facto complainant specifrcally stated that Accused No. 1 received huge amount of Rs.6,42,78,000/- for providing auctioned properties in her name, at reasonable rales and Accused No. t has given forged and fabricated documents i.e., SBI Challans ald demand drafts through Whatsapp, and thereafter she came to know that Accused No.1 had cheated her.

14. The record further reveals that Accused No. 1, along with other accused, conspired to extort a huge amount of twenty crores from more than l0 victims, including the de_facto ry.F 1 complainant, on the pretext of providing auctioned properties i.e., residential plots, open plots, and gold frorn SBI at better prices rLsing fake and fabricated documents isr;r-red by State and Central Government departments, therebv cheating the de facto complerinant and other victims and r\r:cused No.1 transferred a huge amount of Rs. 75 lakhs into r [-re account of petition,:r/A4. Similarly, the record shoq,s that .\ccused No.1 transferred amounts into the account of petitiorerr/A7. Even according to the learned Additional Public Pr ]secutor, the investiga.tion is slill under progress. Accused N<:. ,l is involved in anotlrer casc i.e., Cr.No.215 of 20i5 (C.C. No. 4-ll of 2Ol7l, which :s pending before the XII Additional (,)hief Judicial Magistrate Court.

15. lrLsofar as the contention raised by the lt: ,rrned counsel for the petitioners that prior to the lodging c f' the present complaint by the de facto complainant, Acctr ted No.l had already irled t.P. No. 13 of 2025 on the hle of he Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, City Civil Cour,, Hyderabad, wherein he specihcally pleaded that he had borror.r'ed huge amounts from the petitioners/Accused Nos.4 a:rd 7, the de- facto ccmplainaht, and other victims, ald that rhe said I.P. is \_. 8 still pending is concerned, the initiation of criminal proceedings is not barred under law. Whether Accused No. 1 received amounts from the de-facto complainant and other victims, and whether he cheated them, the truth will come during the course of investigation.

16. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since Accused No.l was released on bail, and the petitioners are also entitled to anticipatory bail is concerned, the record discloses that Accused No.1 was arrested on 29.04.2025 and was granted regular bail by the court below after being in custody for more than 63 days. Mere grant of regular bail to one of the accused does not automatically entitle the other accused to seek anticipatory bail.

17. The record further reveals that the petitioners, along with other accused, received more than Rs. 20 crores from innocent victims. There are specific allegations against the petitioners and other accused that they received these amounts and cheated the victims. -"t" i I i I i I I I E#I-==V 9 I8. Taking inlo consideration the gravity o[ the oll:l:cc, and as the invt:stigartion is undcr progrcss, this Cor l l is not inclincd to E,rant anticipartory l;aiI in lavour o1' the p,'t liuners. I9. AccorCingl-v, thesc Criminal Pctitions are clisnlissed As a serlr.rcl, misccllant:ous pcti[ions, poq5]irrgl if zrny, stand closerl //TRUE COPY// ,f\ I s SD/-A. JAYASRE,E NT IIEGTSTILAR T i i I \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xll Additronar chief Metlo.poritan Magistrate at Nar.paily, Hyderabad. 2. The Staticn House Officer,EOW,Team-ViCCi,bO,nyo,,'r"Ulb fivJLrrO"O. 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High courr toitnei s ate oi rerlngana it 4. One CC kr Sri M.V.Subba Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI NVB/pst HIGH COURT DATED:0410712025 2 : StP 20fr \ I ,/ COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.7320 & 7322 OF 2025 ,,1 ? / r- ./ // DISMISSING THE BOTH CRIMINAL PETITIONS