The High Court · 2025

Order

ia..:..,: t!!< THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE J. SREENI\ AS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7401of Z )25 ORDER: 'l['ris Criminal Petition is filed under Sectior .182 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanl.ritha, 2023 (for short 'BNll i') seeking transit anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.8 in (lr rre No. 13 of 2024 on the file of the CID T.G. Police Station, Hvrl rabad (Now CID Regional Otflce, Karimnagar) for the offenccs punishable under Sections 420 and 120-8 of the Indian Penal Co,l:, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), Section 5 of the Tclangana Protection < f Depositors and Financial E,stablishment Act, 1999 (for short 'TPDFI Act') and Section 5 of the Prize Chits and Moncy Circulation sche t re (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short 'PCMCS Act')

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is tha. on 28-lO-2024 at l7:00 hours, the complainant, lodged a petition at t-iD PS Hyderabad, wherein he stated that in 2022, the accused A- I rva s introduced to him by his friend Y.S. Ravi Kumar Reddy of Cherina , Tamil Nadu. A-1 claimed to have a high-retum investment opportu r ty through a new crypto currency project called G.B.R Coin, whicl, he said would be widely used in real estate and other sectors. ,,\ 1 explained f,rve 2 investment packages promising high daily returns and gave various assurances at meetings held in ITC Hotel Chennai and Marigold Hotel, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. [{e created a WhatsApp group to share bank account details and links, and the complainant and others invested based on his promises. The complainant invested Rs. 4lakhs, another investor Anjaneyulu invested Rs.8 lakhs, and around 43 others invested a total of approximately Rs.95 crores through cash and bank transfers to the accounts of A-1, his wife A-2 and others. Some amounts were routed through Ravi Kumar Reddy, who transferred the funds to A-l and associates. Initialty, the investors could see their investments and trade GBR Coins on the GBR website. The coin's value rose from $0.10 to $3 in a few months. However, the trading platform was later shut down, and A- I claimed technical issues and promised to shift investments to a new platfotm. These promises were never fulfilled. Upon inquiry, it was found that the GBR website was fake and created to deceive investors. Onty Rs.30 to 35 crores were retumed, while the rest was attegedly m isappropriated. The complainant alleges that A-1 and others conspired and cheated him and other investors by fraudulently collecting money in the name of the GBR Coin. Based on the said complaint, the present crime'was registered for the above said offences .)

3. Heard Mr. M.P.Kashyap, leamed Counsel f l the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for responr r nt -State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits t.t r t the petitioner has not committed the ofTence and he has been t-als,: y implicated in the present case. He lurther submitted that therr: .re no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the in:'edients of the alleged offences. The only allegation made against I re pctitioner is that he assisted accused No.1 in creating the la <. : website, i.e., rvrvw.gbrrglobals.io. The petitioner has not received a ry money from the de-facto complainant, the victims, or from Acc rsed No.l and petitioner's wife received an amount of Rs. 10,44(tr . from Golden Bear Reality as on today. He lurther submitted that ac:used Nos.1,6, 7, 1l and 12 were enlarged on regular bail and acc rsed No.2 was enlarged on anticipatory bail. He further subrnitted I at basing upon the statement given by accuscd No.l only, petitione' was implicated in the present crime as accused and the same is not 1 ermitted under law. He further submitted that the petitioner is not lr .ving any other criminal antecedents and he is ready and willing t(, cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions which Lre going to be imposed by this Court and hence prayed for grant of anticipatory 4 bail.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed grave oflence and in conspiracy with accused No.1 and other accused, the petitioner created fake website and received huge amount over Rs.95 crores from the innocent depositors, under the guise of GBR Coin and the petitioner, along with the other accused, has failed to return the amounts collected from the victims. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, it reveals that petitioner is having l0 percent share in the said business. He further submitted that the petitioner has been absconding since the date of registration of the crime i.e., from 28.10.2024 and if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner, along with the other accused, under the guise of GBR Coin, created a fake website and collected a huge amount nearly Rs. 95 crores from the innocent victims. ' '4\ 5 Thereafter, the said website was shut down, and the l :cused failed to retuln the promised amounts, and all of them : rsconded. The specific case of the prosecution is that, after collecti,r;huge amounts fi'om the victims under the guise of a GBR Coin s,: Leme through a lake website. the petitioner and the other accused lail rd to refund the said amounts. lt is also the prosecution's specific a l:gation that the pctitioner is having 10 percent share in the above sai I transactions. 7 . During thc course of hearing, leamed counsel f rr the petitioner subn'ritted that the petitioner has not received any aF ount, and only his rvife received an amount of Rs. 10,440/-, from J e Golden Bear \ Realty. He also submitted that the petitioner did r ot receive any money either lrom the victims or from accused \ < .l or from the other accused. I'hese aspects will be revealed duri r 1 the course of investigation

8. lt is scttled law that in serious oflenccs invo' ing large-scale fraud or public finance crimes, granting bail to the r;cused persons def'eats the interests of the victims. In the case on rand, there are f serious and specific allegations against the petitione ' that he along with other accused have collected huge amount of R:,. )5 crores under the scheme of GBR Coin by creating fake website zr d subsequently 6 failed to return the invested amounts to the victims. Even according ]-- to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is under progress and the charge sheet has not yet been hled.

9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity and seriousness of the offences, this Courl is of the considered view that this is not a fit case lor grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.8

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. 2. The lAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Karimnagar, Karimnagar District

3. The Station House Officer, CID (ClD), Karimnagar District 4. One CC to SRI M P KASHYAP Advocate [OPUCI

5.TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT] 6. Two CD CoPies VM/PSL s HIGH COURT DATED: 0410812025 ORDER CRLP.No.7401 ol 2025 o-1i ( i: ^\.(' .-, .ti ) ) ) 0E tic ftffi )'i t ,il ,, * n :it-C I l i I I I I I I I i I I ! I i I I I i DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION A