The High Court · 2025

ORDER This Crirninal Pctition has becn filed r- nder Section 482 ol the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha San I La, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS) by the petitioner/ accused I o.6, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime Nc.117 of 2025 ori Lhe file of the Stalion House Officer. Vr: qatoor police Station, Jagitial District registercd lor he ollences pr-rnishablc under Sections 318 (4), 351(2) rz.r, 3(5) of' the I3hirratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSi 2 Hearcl Mr. Chandrashekhar Yadav.S, le _r -ned counsel lor the pctitioner and Mr. Sycd Yasar Manr >on, Iearned Ac.lditional Pubhc Prosecutor appcaring lcrr respondenl- S L ir.le

3. Thc casr: of prosecution in bricf is tha[ r, r 02.O5.2ao25 at about 1O:OO trours, the cornplainant lilecl statjng that he carrre to know through his a corrrplaint -r'iend K:rndi N:rrcsh that th e petitioner and other ac( I tsed owr.r a compan-y thal can get clrrrency of 5OO ru1;,: : notes u..rth bl:rck colour on both sides and b-v using a c I u,ill turn the same inLo original 5OO rr' p<,r ernic:rl, they notes and believing the same, the complainant gave Rs.7 lakhs to the petitioner and other accuscd on 04 .O3.2C25 br-rt the acctrsed cheated hirn and escapcd with Rs.7 lakhs and when the cornplainatnt rnadc a phonc call and asked lhcrn to' return the moncy, they thrcatened hirn with dire conseqlrences. Basing on the said cornplaint, thc aloresaid crirne was registered against Lhe peti tioner and other accused for the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counscl for thc pelitioner submiltcd that thc petitioner has not committed thc allegcd offence . Basing upon the confession statement givere by the othcr accuscd, the petitioner was falsely implicatcd in this casc and Lhc same is not permissible undcr Section 25 of thc Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 23(I) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adlriniyam, 2023). He ft-rrther subrnitted that the petitioner is not involved in any crirne and no charge sheet has bcen hled against hirn bcfore any Cor.rrt and thereforc, ingredients of Section 111 ol BNS are also not attracted against him. The other accused wcre arrcstcd and enlarged on bail. He also subrrritted that petitioner's father is suffering with ill-health and cxcept the petitioner no other person is available to looking after his wellare. 'lhc petitioner is ready and willing to coopc - rte with the inverstigation a.d he will abide by Lhe conditiI:rs, which are going to bc imposed by this Courl. In s r pport of his contention, learnecl counsel for the petitiorr,t. rclied upon rhc [bllor,,.ing d ecisions; i) Donthireddy pararneswar Reddy v. St rte of Andhra Pradeshl and ii) Suraj Singh v. State of punjabz.

5. Per (:ontra, learned Additional pul> i r Prosecutor subnrirtcci th:rt ttle petitioner has committed a ancl spccilic :rllcgations are levelled agarnst t ancl oth<-'r :rccr-rsed is that they assured t complainarrt that they woujd provide fake curr r l:rkl-rs in r:xchange of original currency of Rs. <:hc:rtcd him. I Ie lurther subrnitted ,h^, ,h. , Section 1l I of BNS are very much applicable t< cascr on the groutnd that the accused had in., crirncs i.e. 8l o1- 20 IB and I of 2024 on tl.re li P.S. Thc Invcstig.rtion Officer alter conducting 3ravc olfence re petitioner 1e de facto ncy of Rs.35 z lakhs and gredients of the prcsent rLved in two c of Jagitial nve stigation filecl chargc sircet against accused No.1 and t- 3 Sarne was ' 2025 SCC Onl.rnc AI') 1(180 I202 I SCC Onl.rnc t,cil i 155I0 .l takcn cogn izantce by the competent Court. Hcnce the offence under Section 111 of BNS is very much attracted against the petitioner in the prcscnt casc. Hc further subrnitted that the petitioner earlier approached this Court and fiied Criminal Petition No.6572 of 2025 seeking anticipatory bail with the vcry same grounds and lhe same was disrnissed on 24.06.2025. He aiso submittecl tLrat mcre granting regular bail in favour of other accused is no1 a gror-rnd for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, espccially when the investigaLion is undcr progress. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for gran t of anticipatory

6. Having considcrcd the rival subrrrissions made by thc respective parties and aftcr perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that spccific allegzrtion levelled against the'petitioner is that he along with other accusecl went to the house of lhe de facto complainant and received an arnount of Rs.7 lakhs frorn him on assllrance that they wor-rld give Rs.35 lakhs in exchangc of rrranulacturing 5OO rupee notes in their company by using a chemical process and failed to do so and thcre:by cheatecl the cornplainant.

7. \. TE'e rccord fi.-rrther reveals that the pctitioncr ) carlier appro:lchccl Lhis Court and filed C:': n-rinaI Petition No.6572 of 2025 seeking anticipatory bail anc disrnissccl ()rI'24.06.2025.'l'he petitionr Lhe sarne was - oncc again appr()achcd t.his Court and filcd the prc sent criminal petition with thc very sarne allegations an J Lhere are no chzrnged circumsLances. The judgments relir:, i r.rpon by the Iearr-rcd coLlnsel lbr thc petitioner are not aI) rlicable to the facLs and circumstanr:cs of thc casc, as accrl l :d No.2 in the prt: senL crirne r.,,,a s involved in other two crint: ;. wherein the ln\,(..stig:rtilrrt C)['liccl aftcr <:onducting invr.r tigaIion filed chargc shcct and the cornpetent Cour I has taken cognizarrr:c ar-rcl iht: said cases are pendirS . Therefore, Scction I 1l ol IINS is vcry rnuch applicable I r thc present crirnc and t hc s:1nrc uras not disputed by the learned colrnscl lrrr thc petitioner. In view of tF e sarne, the ) ) contention rai sed b.y the learncd cotrnsel for ,1-r e petitioner [htrt thc ol-Icr rr:c L rndr:r Scction I ] 1 of IINS rs; no t :rttracted to t }tc pet itiorlcir. rs n()l tcnablc under law. a_ It is trire lau, that in serious offe t;es involving largc sr:alc fraucl or public linance crimes gi r nting bail to the :rccuscd pcrsons rlc cts the interest of not only the viclims brit also c.ruses prejudrce to the IndiarL economv. In \ ) t .-\-'""'t the case on hand, there are scrious and specilic alleg:rtions levelled against the petiLioner thaL he along with other accrrsed went to the house of tir,e de, facto cornplainant ancl received an amount of Rs.7 lakhs lrom him on assurance they would give Rs.35 lakhs in exchange of manufacturing 5OO rlrpee notes and lailed to cio so. 9 Taking in to con sidcration facts and crrcLlrnstances of the case and gravity of the offence. thi s Court is not inclin(rd to grant ar-rticipatory bail Lo Lhe pc- tl tro ncr I O. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is clisrnissed As a sequel thereto, miscr:llaneous applications, if ieny. pe nding in this petition stand closed I s ASSISTA SD/- U.SUDHA I NT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Dharmapuri, Jagitial District 2 The Station House officer, vergatoor porice station, Vergatoor, Jagitiar District 3. One CC to SRt CHANDRASHEKHAR YADAV S Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies VM/PSL !: ?.::::rtti I i HIGH COURT DATED: 0410812025 ORDER CRLP.No.9583 ot 2025 Z,' i] i i:i lfii . .i *. ;/' ,,7 -ra :r' "/' DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I J