Ashwin Kumar Jivaraj Bhai Patel v. The State of Telangana

The brief facts of the case are that on 18.05.2026, de-facto complainant lodged a report before the Police stating that he is Authorized Representative and Senior Manger of SR Edu Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and that petitioner along with other accused illegally diverted and misused company funds by false acknowledgments, fake communications and misleading deposit confirmations. It is further alleged that petitioner along with other accused together started Brainlingo Edtech Private Limited using diverted company money, confidential company information and business resources to attract company clients, employees and business for their own benefit by claiming that Brainlingo Edtech Private Limited was a sister concern of the complainant company, whereby causing huge loss to the de-facto complainant to a tune of Rs.81, 00,000/-. Hence, requested the Police to take necessary legal action. Basing on the said complaint, a case was registered against them for the above said offences.

Heard Sri G. Santosh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent -State. 3

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is innocent, is arrayed as Accused No.2 and that there are no specific allegations against him and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.05.2026 and that the material part of the investigation has already been completed. He contended that even according to the complaint, the alleged misappropriation of funds was committed by Accused No.1. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature and that the investigation is still in progress. He further submitted that under the guise of conducting business, the accused diverted the amount invested by the de-facto complainant and also cheated him through a sister-concern company, which requires a thorough investigation. Therefore, he contended that, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 4

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since

25.05.2026. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses i.e., LWs.1 to 5, including the Investigating Officer, have already been examined. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of investigation and the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.2, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required. iii. The petitioner shall abide by conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) 5 of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).