The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS 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.S on Regular bail in Crime No. 1 17 of 2025 on the file of Velgatur Police Station, Jagtial District for the offences U/s. 318(4), 351(2), 111 r/w 3(5) of BNS Act. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. B.Arjun Rao, Advocate representing Mr.Sai Sruthin Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the State/Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREE]\IVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7541 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking bail to the petitioner/accused No.5 in Crime No.117 of 2025 on the file of the P.S. Velgatoor, Jagtial Dist.rict, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 151(2) and 111 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023 (for short 'BNS').

2. The, case of the prosecution is that on 02.0!;.2025 at about 10:00 hours, the complainant filed a complaint stating that he came to know tlrrough his friend Kandi Naresh that the aci:used No.6 and other accused own a company that can get currency of 500 rupee notes with. black colour on both sides and by using a chemical, they will tum lhe same into original 500 rupee notes an,l belir:ving the same, the complainant gave Rs.7 lakhs to the petitloner and other accused on 04.03.2025 but the accused cheated hirn and escaped with Rs.7 lakhs and when the complainant made a phone call and asked them to retum the money, they threatened him rvith dire consequences. Basing on the said complaint, the aforesaid crime 2 was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the aforesaid offences

3. Heard Mr.B.Arjun Rao, learned counsel representing Mr.Sai Sruthin Rao, leamed counsel for the petitionei and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the above crime. He further submitted that in the complaint and remand case diary, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences and the police have not seized any fake curency from the possession ofthe petitioner and they seized Rs.10,000i- original net cash and one mobile phone from the possession of the petitioner He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Section 111 of BNS are not attracted against the petitioner, on the ground that no similar offence has been registered against the petitioner in the preceding period of 10 years'. I{e further submitted that the petitioner was 3 arrested on 06.05.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody and the entire investigation is completed, except filing ,:f charge sheet. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by the'co nditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble ,'\pex Court in Muhammatl Rasheed v. State of Keralat . Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prose<:utor submitted that the petitioner has committed grave offences and there are specific allegations against the petitioner and otht:r accused that they have collected huge amount of Rs.7 lakhs fro m the de-facto complainant under the guise of providing Rs.35 lakhs of lake curency. He further submitted that accused Nos.l, i,1,4 and 8 were arrested along with the petitioner on 06.05.i1.025 and the investigation is under progress and if the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and nray threaten the witnesses, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. I 2024 SCC Onlinb Ke(4682 4

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and other accused that accused No.8 introduced accused No.1 to the de-facto complaiaant and accused Nos.l to 8, including petitioner cheated the de-facto complainant under the pretext of converting of black coloured currency notes into original Rs.500/- notes using chemical process. They induced the de-facto complainant to believe that if he gives Rs. 1 lakh original currency they would give Rs.5 lakh fake currency. The complainant believing the words of petitioner and other accused has paid huge amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner and other accused in the presence of Lws'2 and 3. The petitioner and the other accused are absconded with the amount of the complainant. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accused Nos.3, 6 and 7 are absconding and accused Nos.l, 2, 4 and 8 were affested on

06.05.2025 and the investigation is under progress. The judgment which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case, on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner 5 to attracl the ingredients ofsections 318(4),351,i2) and 111 r/w 3(5) of BNS. Even according to the learned Arlditional Public Prosecutrrr, investigation is under progress. 7 . Taking into consideration the facts and circr:,mstances of the case and since there are serious allegations again:lt the petitioner, this Courl is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.5.

8. Ar:cordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if an'r, sha1l stand closed \ //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.PRATHIMA UTY REGISTRAR ND \ I SECTION OFFICER To, 1 3 The Station House Officer, Velgatur Police Station, Jagtial District. One CC to Sri.K.Sai Sruthin Rao, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sitate of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] L 4 Two CD Copies. (A PSK /PSL HIGH COURT DATED:01 10712025 ORDER CRLP.No.7541 ot 2025 :-.\,'\>\ i,' 1 li sEP 206 L> :--" "'_':.: : ..t' ,, , ,;, .,,, DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL PETITION q ?cl 'b \-) 6 I T