The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SIJ,] {NA CRIMINAL PETITI oN No.13543 OF 202 i ORDER: This criminal pctition is filed under Sr;': ion 482 oI Bharativ:r Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O'')' I b! peritioner/A.6 seeking anticipatory bail in cor r r'r:tion s'ittr Lhe Crirnc No.72 of 2025 ol CCS Police Statron, DD, Ft" crabacl The oflences allegcd against the petitioner are ur r crr Sr:r:lions 315(2), 318('+), 336(3) and 340(2) rlw 6l(2) of Bi'r'r-;rli1'a Nvava Sanhita,2023.

2. The facts of the case are that a complaint 't rs lodged by the complainant on 18.O6.2025 stating that he v r directors ol M/s. Trilliance Builders Pvt' Ltc ' S rinagar Colony, Hyderabad. The complaint w':r ; s' one of thc IocaLed iat rlgajnst one Selva Kumar and Sunil Kumar (Directors), Shar kar-personal Assistanl to Sunil Kumar, Mrs. Radhika, ari' Sudhakar- marketing executives of Smart Investmc'r Solutions, Corn'rbatorc, Tamil Nadu. On 05-12 2023, Sur-i introduced at the Hyderabad office by Srinivrr Vijayawacla, alol-rg with Mrs. Radhika and I Kurnar'*'as rur Rao from cr husband Sudhakzrr Vishrva. Thev claimed that Sudhakar rr Ls involved in 2 finance and had connections with companies offering private business loans. They strongly recommended Smart Investment Solutions as a reliable source for- such loans- Based on their assurances, D.\r. Ramesh and co director S. Ranga Rao, along with Srinivasa Rao, traveled to Coin'rbatore and met Selva Kumar and Sunil Kumar, who offered a loan of Rs. 1O0 Crores against collateral for a period of 10 years. It is further alleged that Srinivasa Rao falsely claimed to be a retired High Court Judge and collected Rs. 12 Lakhs from the complainants lor travel and other expenses. Despite initial doubts, Mrs. Radhika assured them of her past success in securing large loans and explained that 4"h of the loan amount had to be paid r-rpfront for registration. Although the complainants requesled only Rs.1O Crores, she rnsisted that loans below Rs. 1O0 Crores will not be entertained and she agreed to help them in getting approval for Rs. 10 Crores and demanded a bribe of Rs.3O Lakhs in cash in three installments and the same was paid on three different dates.

3. It is further alleged that addiLionally, Rs- I Crore was transferred from the company's account through cheque No.000O 16 dated 11.12.2023, HDFC Bank, SR Nagar Branch to Mr. Selva Kumar's HDFC account in Coimbatore. Mrs. Raclhika I 3 then promisecl rmmediate registration and disbur; after repeated delal's, lhc complainants u'ere callec ancl shou't-r a Dclrancl Draft of Rs 96 Crores allegcc I SRI, Coimbzrtore. Mr. Rarnesh photographed the DII it through his contacls at SBI branches in Hyderr-l: ancl Ananlapur, u'ho confirmed it as fake Later' they mct Shankar, rvho drrected them to meet Selv:r Sur-ril Kumar at Chcnnai. Their associate Mr' Rahul to SBI, Mount Road Branch, where the bank colL forged olte. After confrontation, the accused complainanls to Coimbatore, promising to resolvc t RTGS transfer. F{o\^'cver, after waiting for z cornplainants found the office vacated and t untraceablc. Mrs. Radhika and her husband had their resiclence and clisappeared Further inquiry I Selva Kumar ar-rcl Sunil Kumar, along with thei dcfrauded multiple individuals of approximately l using fake DDs, forged documents, and by co 1 stamp papers. ledger papers, promissory notes' cheques, none of u'hich were returned' I'f complainant requestcd that a criminal case I rnent, but o Chennai . issucd b]' Lnd verilicd rd, Nellore, rL Katpadi, Kumar and cok thc DD irmed it as nvired the re issue via wee k, the re accused Llso vacated :vearicd that team, had s.25 Crores :cting blank anri signcd crefore, the e registered against the accused and appropriate action be ta< ):t to rccover 4 lts'l.42Croresfraudulentlyobtainedfromthem'Basingonthe said complaint case \'\'as registered against the accused '

4.FlcardSriN.Vcnkataiah,learnedcounselfort}repetitioner :rnd Sri D.Arun Kumar, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearir.rg for thc respondent-State '

5. Thc learned counsel for the petitioncr contended that allegations made against the petitioner are all false and only to harass the petitioner for settling the matter' The petitioner rrcver met the complainants either directty or rndirectlv' He further submitted that there is no averment in thc complaint to show that the petitioner is involved in this illegal transaction' The petitioner herein is a private employee and neithcr he rcceir,edthemoneyfromthecomplainantsnorinvolvedinthe alleged transaction. As such, prayed this Court to grant bail to the pctitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the accused have committed criminal breach of trust, created documents, forged the Bank DD for an amount of Rs.96.O3 Crores with an intention to lure the victims under the guise of providing huge loans rx'ith simple interest' deceivcd the victims and chealed them to a tune of Rs 4 Crores' - i:;l€;1 lqr:"*F-r 5 The petitioner herein is an active associate of A.I r n runnlng this lraudulenl business. The petitioncr hereir c:arned the lorged dcmand draft to the State Bank of India, v4ount road Branch, Chennai to give an imprcssion of its gen'r rLeness and on verific:rtion hv the bank officials it revealed that t rs a forged document, and thcrebl' petitioner fled away fron L the branch along with thc forgcd document. He also wrong-\ r:vealed his namc as Rahr.rl instead of his actual name Hakrt-t Pecr Akber I while hancling ovcr demand draft. A.3, A.4 an<l r.5 are still absconcling and the defrauded amount has to be irrr c,vered from I I i I l Lhis petitioncr a1so. lf petitioner is granted bail tl ere is every possibility of flight risk and he may influence or hrcaten the witnesses. Thc pctitioner is a native of Coimbatol e Tamilnadu and he may nol cooperate with the investigation w L ich is at the initial stage, as such, prayed to dismiss this petitror 7 . Considering the submissions made by botlL the counsel and the material on record there are specihc alleg: L ions against the petitioner herein showing that after knou i Lg that the Demand Draft is fabricated, the petitioner disappe: -ed from the Bank. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said lt at petitioner is no u.ay conncctcd rvith thc alleged offences. Ir vierv of the 6 !' severlty of allegations against the petitioner this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismisscd

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismrssed Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Station House Officer, police Station, CCS DD, Hyderabad, 2 One CC to SRt N VENKATATAH nOro"riJtOFUCf 3. Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court f; ifre3tate of Telangana at 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI MiPSL o i ! l I I I I l I I I I i I I I I i I I ' HIGH COURT DATED:0411'll2O2s i I I I I I I I I i I ORDER CRLP.No.13543 of 2025 i.. U! u;u ?[75 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \