The High Court · 2025

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 enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with F.l.R.No. 02 of 2020 on the file of the P.S , ClD, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. P Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREEI{IVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9352 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4[12 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.17 in Cnnre No.2 of 2020 on the file of CID, TS, Hyderabad, registered for the oflences punishable under Sections 406,409 and420 r/w. 120-8 of Indian Pr:nal Code, 1860 (fbr short, "lPC")

2. 'l'lie case ol prosecution in brief is that on 26.3.:1C20, the de facto complainant has lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner along with othcr accusecl in conspiracy have gained confidence ol the complainant and other victirns by acting as agents-cum-brokers c,f online l"orex trading and duped them to the tune of Rs.2,08,42,100/- so far. Basing the sarne, the above crime was registered. l. Ileard Srnt.P.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel lor petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public l'rosecutor lor the responden t-State

1. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not cornmitted the allcged offence and has been falsely ir,-rplicatccl in the l z: i I I I i ! I ! I t i , : 2 above crime. She further submitted that there are no allegations against the petitioner either in ttre FIR or in the remand case diary, and that the entire allegations are levelled against one G.V.Brahmachari and other accused, alleging that the de facn complainant deposited an amount of Rs.53 lakhs into their accounts. She further submitted that the petitioner neither received any amount from the de facto complainant nor lrom the other accused, hence the ingredients under Section 409 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. The other offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment upto seven years. I{e further submitted that though the crime rvas registered in the year 2020, the petitioner came to know about the pendency ol the said crime recently. He further submitted that petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and is ready to cooperate with the rnvestigation and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be inrposed by this Court and hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submittcd that petitioner has committed a Erave offence. Thcre ts 3 specific role attributed against the petitioner that he received huge arnount ol Rs.19,96,700/- from the victim under the guise olonline Forex trading investments. The petitioner, along with other accused is alleged to have : I I I I 3 received huge amount of Rs.2,08,42,100/- from the deitcto complainant and other victims under the name and style of Forex trading. He further submitted that the petitioner and other accused have not refunded the amounts to the victims. He further submitted that investigation is under progress and if the petitioner/accused No.l7 is granted anticipatory bail at this stage, he rnay tamper with the evidence and rnay threaten the witnesses, and hence. prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having consiclered the rival submissions made b) the respective parties and alter perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that initially thc crirne was registered for the offences urLder Sections 406 and 420 r'u, ll0-U of'IPC. Subsequently, the offence under Section 409 was also adtlcd. I:r'cn according to the prosecution, the petitioner and other accuse(l collectetl huge amounts from the de facto complainant and other vrctinls unrler the pretext of an online Forex investment scheme, and lalsely assurecl thcrn that they would receive higher returns on their deposits. I'lrc learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the written instructions lumished by the Deputy Superintr:r dent of Police, EOW, ClD, '[ clangana, Hyderabad, which reveal that the petitioner received varirrus amounts between 11.01.2018 and 21.04.2018. The total amount received tionr the victim is Rs.19,96,7004, un 1t:r the pretext ol' I i 4 investment in a Forex website. Hence, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has not received any amount either from the de facro complainant or from other victims is not tenable under law. Even according to the leamed Additional public Prosecutor, the investigation is under progress and charge sheet has not been filed T Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offences, this court is not incrined to granr antrcrpatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications. pending if any, shall srand closcd Sd/- S. MA LIKARJUNA RAO NT REGISTRAR ASSIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Vlth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad The Station House Officer, CID police Station, Hyderabad Prosecutor, Hish court for the state of retangana ar Iff":r?:J:d?r"riublic One CC to Smt. p. Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate [OPUC] 4 5 Two CD Copies To, 2 J VII/'PSI- w I I l i i i I I t i ! HIGH COURT DATED: 0110812025 ORDER i I CRLP.No.9352 ot 2025 ( ( rtlE StA { o () 12 li0l/ A6 * )4 sDcrcxeo a ((\ t' i, C) \\ .d DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 6copf"/| W G1(lad