The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Usha Anantha Subramanian, General Manager, Southern Zone, Bank of Baroda. Chennai ... Petitioner/Accused No.7 .. Respondents/Defacto Com plainant Petition under Sectron 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the ft/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in LPC No. 2 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearlng the arguments of Sri Mohammed Adam, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Srinivas Kapatia, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI on behalf of the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HOI{OURABLE SM'T JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMI$AL PETITION Ho. LL966 af Z{}Z ORDER: seeking the court to enlarge the perlrioner r,r'ho is arrayed as accused No.7 in LPC.No.2 of 20'22 on the liie of principal Special Juclge for CBI Cases, Hvderabad, on bail. rhe presenr Criminal Petition is filed. 2- The brief facts of the case are that :r case \.r"'as registered on 28.03.2a11, based on a cornplaint by smt. usha Anantha Subramanian, General Manager of Bank ol Baroda's Southern Zone. The complaint aileged that on O3.{j3.2O1i. Ranganatha chowdary. director of M/s shiri Avenues pvt. Ltd., rleposited a fraudulent cheque lbr Rs.Il.25 cr3res inro his neiuly opened current ac--count at Adarsh Nagar Branch, H_yderabad. The cheque, issued by Mrs. Shobhana A Mehta, \4ras iater found to be fake. The accused v,'ithdre.,r, aiid transferred ihc money in various transactions, causing a v,'ronglul loss of Rs.3.25 crores to the bank and a i,r,rongful gain to themselves. The investigation revealed that rhe acc;used had opened t_he current account with the intention to cheat and defraud the bank. 2

3. Heard Sri N{ohami:-rcd Ariam, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Srinir.;a:; Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appeani.t,.' iin hr-:i:alf of respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel loi^ rhe petilioner submitted that the -been falsely implicated in the petitioner is innocent and hets case, rvith the chargesheet llled against him as Accused No. 7, and shown as absconding '*ithout his know'ledge. He further submitted that the allegatior:s ai e false and the case is an abuse of due process ol lalt, rvitli no ior-'us slandi lor the complainant to file the case. L{e averr::cl t}r;rt. r-i're petitioner, employed in Kuwait, was u.naware of tl-re case registered against him as Accused No.7 in FIR No. RC 03isii231l, CBI SCB Chennai, until his passport renerval .',.'as rvithheld. He contended that the implication of petitioner is based solely on the confession statement of the approver, Ethsham Ali, who has since expired and had uiterior motives. He asserted that this Court had previously granted pre-arrest baii to the petitioner, which was i,villfully disobeyed by tlie respr:ndents, resulting in the petitioner's arrest ancl remanrl. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner b1' allorving this criminai petition. 3 -

5. f)r-r tLre cther hand, learned Special Public iri'oseculor for Clll opposeil the bail, siatinq thait tl-rc petitioncr- .','ijs sranled pic-uu-rest l:iiiil bv this Coult on rlebruary 13,2tr25, bui has [ari..:d :,o corrll--i\,',r.iLi'r thc orcler dcspii-c a lapse o1- sl..itn monihs. He' submitt,t:d that ihe pctitioner hacl knor.vledgt: oi'r_ne criminai proceedines irgainst hiri-i, as evidenceci by i-ris counsei's appeararlcr-' ir-r 2016. and iras been residing in l{ui'."ait iliegallSr sirrr:c hi:; 1>assport expired rn 202'2. Airt: ';xtradiLion Fi',r^e<'d!,ri:.s tht: oetiLionr,r 1tr,as replttri:r'-t-ri 1,\ iniia :rnii pr-oduceci br'fore the trial C'ourt on Scptember i I 2023, c,ut inslead of suirrendering and fiIng a bail application. the pciitiorlcr fili::i an application to recall thc Nil\!', u.hich u'as ciisrnissed b,1, ihe trial Court due to non-complia:'ri:e u,ith this court's orCer-. Therefore, he praved that the Cor,rr Cismiss the cnminerl petrrion.

6. Havlngi regard to rival subntissions made, arct on going through the material placed on record, it is ncted Lhat though learned counsei for petitioner submitted that pre arrest bail rvas I t granted to petitioner, and he filed recall petition, thc trial court hacl not acccpted the same. That apart, the counter averments would shorv that petitioner had not come to India i,oiuntarily, \ 4 insteacl, he r.,t'as de:porteci i-r'i'(^:;,r':1,; zLul-horllies at. the cOSt oI Centrai Goi,et-nment along r'.'ith i':;('t)rt. Furt-her, there are sevei-al olhcr cases pe r:cline ,i!{trinSt tfuis petitioner. Furthcrmcre. though ii i:; i:lrittcilr'i':,.1 [i;at p-lctitioner rvas not 2!1'?r(-'tlf petliienr:y oi ihi:'; c:lsl'.-:':ril ;'r !''--'lir') i-o knou'about lhe Same Only rn,heu he r,vcnL i3 pa-"irjDOI-1 r;ificc for renerTal of passport, it is pertinent to llote th.li iockei crdcr o{ 2O16 itseif \/oulcl shor,v Lhat vakalal rvns iilt-d i:r:ii il Section 317 petition !trras fiied, rvhich falsiiics trii' si-ail'lIe nt Lnat i--letilione r u/as una\irLrl-e of peirdencl' ,-ri crin:.: Ci'r'r:;iiiering zrli these aspects, this Court ceems is not- iiri;ililca i.) ',li-a-l-lt bail to the petitioner and the same is liatrle to t-re'iismisstci. 7 Accordrngly, the Crirrrinal petiiirlll is dismissed Miscellaneous appiicaiti.rls, ii a.1-i, pending, shall stand closed SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER t I I To,

1. The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, CBI/SCB/Chennai Police Station, Chennai 3. Two CCs to Special Public Prosecutor for CBl, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Mohammed Adam, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies ABK/PSI, HIGH COURT DATED: 2610912Ct25 ORDER CRLP.No.11966 of 2025 DISMISSING THE: CRIMINAL PETITION v\ Z 0 ( oe. 1HE S i,,.i ( o.) B 4 ll[\/ 20fr ,.z u) * D 'r t{