The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. B. Seetha Devi, Wo B. lr/lahender Rao, aged 67 years, R/o H. No .1-7- 71l24, Maheswari Nagar, Street No-8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad,T.G ...Official Respondent No.1 ... Com plaina.nURespondent No.2 Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2, in the file of SHO P.S. CCS, DD Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, for thg offences under U/s 316(2). 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) BNS. -,-1, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Arlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Satish Chakravarthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER -/ THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA - CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O7lO of 2o25 ORDER: This Crimin:rl Petition is lilt'cl unclcr Scction 482 o[ Bharatiya Nagirrik Suraksha Sanhit:r, 2023 ([or shorl 'BNSS') for grant of pre-arrest b:ril to thc pctitioncr, rvho is i rrayr.d as accused No.2 in Crimc No.5.-r ol 2025 ol C(lS. I)1) Police Station, Hyderabacl

2. The briel- larcts of t hc c asc ilrc that r>n 26.0 I -1025 thc de-facto complainant krdgcd ir comltlerinL st:ltinrl thirt a common acqualnlance introclrtced Ircr to onc I\ )talmarthi Nagcshu.ara Sharma in Mar', 2022, u,ho introduc:crl lrimsclf as the Manager ol SBI Strcsse(l Assctsi [3nrnch, Iioti. l'he said person approac:hed her multiplc tintcs st:rting therl hc had a good investment proposztl, knou,irrg tlt:rt hcr datrghtcr is living in abroad. To secure thc invcstmcrrt, hc uscd to lrcclut:ntly visit the house ol her sistcr, P. Virtod:r, on one prct( xt or the other and tried to convincc her rt:g:rrding the szrid irtvl,stment proposa[, promjsing very goocl reluurs. B:lsir-rg on t].rc sarnt:, as tl-re said proper tics u,crc ili 1>rirnc irrt,as, i.c., Iiirrrirlritlrnagar, 2 SKS.J Crl.P.No.l07IO of 2025 Tarnaka, D.D. Colony and Banjara Hills, she started paying him money for the purchase of the said auction properties and he also staled that the bank was auctioning gold ornamcnts plcdged rvith the bank. Belicving his words she paid Rs.6,42,78,00O/- on multiple occasions from May 2022 to December 2024 towarcls the purchase of auction plots, houses and gold ornaments through cash, UPI and online transfer. The said amount comprises Lhc lifelong savings of herself, hcr husband, and familr'' mcmbers, which includes hand loans taken from nc:rr attd dear oncs and proceeds from sold properties belonging to family members, along with a subslantial amount ol hard-earncd money of her daughtcr and son-in larv living abroad- Thereafter, he showed multiple letters perlaining to different departments such as the Governmer-rt of Telangana, RBI, Ministry of Finance (Governmcnl oi tndia), GST Department, and SBI. Believing thosc documenLs, ovcr more than two years, she paid towards the purchzrse ol five propcrties and gold, but he nevcr registercd a sinsle property in her or her family membcrs' name. Upon making inquiries with near and dear ones, she came to knou,that shc u'as deceived by the petitioner and as such, rcqucstcd the police to Lakc neccssary action, and 3 SKS,J Crt.P.l{o. 1071O of 2025 basing on the same, the police registered case against the accused.

3. Heard Sri K. Satish ChakravarthS,', learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as r.r''ell as Sr Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitteC that there are no allegations against the petitioner and shatever the allegations are only against accused Nos.I and 3 to 8, and investigation has revealed that offence has been committed by accused No. 1 by conspiring with accused Nos.2 to 8- He further submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and the material part of the investigation was already completed. Therefore, he prayed the Cor,rrt to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing tlLis criminal petition.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Iiler1 counter afhdavit stating that according to the prosecution accused No.2 by conspiring with accused No. I and otl- cr accused I 4 SKS,J Crl.P.t{o-1O71O of 2025 persons, posed himself as Assistant Director, SBI, Estates & Finance, SBI Koti, Hyderabad and spoke over mobile phone with the victims by assuring to allot auctioned properties from SBI, Koti Branch and induced them to pay amounts to accused No.1. Accordingly, accused No. 1 by conspiring with accused Nos.2 to 8, forged and fabricated various letter of State/Central Government Departments by forging the signatures of the respcctive olllcials and shared those letters through Whatsapp lo severai victims to make them believe that their process are genuine and thereby succeeding in extorting about Rs.20 Crores. He further submitted that accused No.2 posed himself as bank official over phone and insisted them to make payments lowards respective properties at the earliest. During thc course of investigation, though notices were served to accused No.2 to submit relevant documents, he was not turned out. It is only a typographical mistake in the remand CD missing name of accused No.2 and there are serious allegations against accused No.2. At this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. ,/. - 5 SKS,J Crl.P.lYo- 1O710 of 2025

6. In the light of the submissions made b1, both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material :rvailable on record, it is noled that the allegations against the.petitioner are that he along with accused Nos. 1 , 3 to 8 co n spired and cheated innocent victims and accused No.2 played a vital role in cheating, and as seen from the record. Furthr:r, there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Furthermore, the investigation was not yet completed. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the Criminal Petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7 Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismisscd Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha1l stand closed SD/- L-LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Xll Additional Chief N/letropolitan Magistrate at Nampalry, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, INSP Adf\illN (DD) police station Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] W 4 One CC to Sri K.Satish Chakravarthy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies u u $[egu HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 --_ ''_=_-'::- -- , ,'i,., ,: : ..iin.. ,.: - \ .,: _..- .., t1: I0 [[I 235 n'. ..'l ,^ t -r1,/ ORDER CRLP.No.10710 o12025 t.r . '', ' ^ -.,. i' DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I + J