At High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Seshagiri Rao Yalamanchili, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent- State. The Court madethe following: ORDER ----7 a THE HOITOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJAfiA CRIMIML PETITION No.lOB3S of 2O2ic ORDER: Tlris Criminal petition is filed under Sectio n 4g2 of Bharati5'a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSSJ for grant ol' pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.5 in Crime No.l68 of 2023 of INSp ADMIN (DD) Police Station, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 1g.05.2O2S the de_ facto contplainant lodged a report with the police stating that he was introduced to accused No. 1 through one Mohammed Shareef, in connection with an investment opportunit5r in a company styled as V.V. Enterprises. Accused No. I promised returns of 80% to l2%o per month on the invested capital. As per the requt:st of Accused No. l, the complainant, along with 2g others, invesred a total amount of Rs.3,71,SO,OOO/_ in the said company. The investments were maaaged by accused No. l, his associate.;, and family members, who issued cheques as security. While returns were paid initially, they were later discontintred, and the accused began acting evasively. When , I 2 . sKsJ Crl.P.!Io. 1O3il5 of 2o25 the victims sought repayment, the accused cited insolvency and the cheques issued were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case under crime No.168 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 42O read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPCJ and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection Of Depositors Of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, "ISPDFE Act').

3. Heard sri Seshagiri Rao Yalamanchili, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not collected any amount from the victims and that, pursuant to a Memorandum oi Understanding, the petitioner undertook the business without any direct transfer of funds from the victims to his name and that the petitioner is not liable for the offence under Section 5 of TSPDFE Act, as the amounts were collected by w Enterprises and that the petitioner is neither a representative of W Enterprises nor involved in its financial operations. He further relied upon the 3 sKs,J Crl.P.I{o.1O335 of 2025 order passed by this Court in Cr1.P.No.3415 of 2024, wherein the Court noted that neither the complainant nor the alleged victims had deposited any arnount in M/s.Shri Gurl Datta Enterprises, and there was no liability on their part to repay the investnrents made in W Enterprises. Consequently, the Court grantec[ bail to petitioner-A6.complainant. Therefore, he prayed the Co'rrt to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecr:tor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learnecl counsel for the petitioner, stating that the prosecution has fLled bank statements showing that accused No.1 transfe,rred substantial amounts to the account of the petitioner. These amounts are alleged to be proceeds of crime arising; from the fraudulent investment scheme and that the receipt of such funds, despite claiming no direct involvement, indical.e-s a financial nexus with the alleged offence. In view of the gr,avity of the allegations and the financial loss caused to multiple individuals, he prayed that the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. \ \ .,,,,,-,-. _..*J**. 4 sKs,J Crl.P.I{o. 1(X}35 of 2O25 6- Having considered the submissions of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, including the bank statements, this court is of the view that there exists prima facie material suggesting the involvement of the petitioner in the financial transactions linked to the alteged fraud. The transfer of funds from Accused No.l to the account of the petitioner raises serious questions regarding his role in the offence. The reliance placed on Crl.P.No.3415 of 2024 is found to be different, as that case pertained to regular bail under different factual circumstances. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bait to the petitioner. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY" SD'. A. PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR (? SECTION OFFICER / To,

1. The station House officer, P.S. EOW Team-lX, ccs, DO, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Seshagiri Rao Yalamanchili Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies AS/gh HIGH COI'RT DATED:0tr/09/2025 IHE S Ir C) (.) 1 B Ft:8 2|l2fi a * 'o * ORDER CRLP.No.10335 of 2025 /\ \ I \ a DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION. v \"'