The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tht Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing tl'tr arguments of Sri C Sharan Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sr D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri R.Shekhar Goud, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER v IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TTLANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA' CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 4909 OF 2025- OSth DAY OF DEC EMBER 2O25l Between : Yousuf Sultana Nazia & five others Petitioners/A. 1 to A.5 & A.8 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Respondent ORDER This crirninal petition is lrled under Section 482 of Sanhita, 2C23 bY the seeking anticiPatory bail in Nagarik Suraksha Bharatiya petitioners/A. 1 to A.5 & A.8 connection with Crime No. 1819 of 2025 Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 316(4), 318(a) r/w'3(5) of I 2 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSI Initially the crime was registered in Madhapur police Station it was transferred and re-numbered as Crime N,t Lnd thereafter 89 of 2025 of EOW (Cyberabad) Police Station, Cyberabad -Di:; cict and later Sections 338 and 340(21 of BNS were also added o the present SCCLiONS

2. The brief facts of the case are that A. 1 was e r employee of Soft Standard Soiutions LLP since ll.lO.2O2l anc she used the company accounts for her personal expens(l and made fraudulent transactions to a tune of Rs.2.8S Cr,r es and same was transferred to her family members. Fraud .r rs discovered on O4.O9.2025 during the routine audit of the fina rcial records. Hence, the Administration Manager of the said co. a complaint before police on 25.09 .2025 seek i rpany lodged rg necessary action against the accused basing on which the po ice registered the case against the accused for the above offences

3. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned cor_r rsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Addir onal public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and S.i R.Shekhar Goud, learned counsel appearing for the implead re tpondent. -3- 4, The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners is that A. 1 is an employe e of PeLabytz Technologies Private Limited and joined thc Company on 09'10'2021 as a Senior Accounts Executive and she has nothing to do with the Soft Standard Solutions and both the companies are two different entities and there is no basis to implicaLe her in the present case' He further submitted that whatever transfers made by A' 1 is on instructions of the Directors of the Company and to save themselvesA.lwasmadeasaScapegoatandallherfamily members were implicated in this case' He further submitted that the entire investigation is based on the documentary evidence as such, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail ro the Petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defacto complainant vehemently opposed bail stating that not only Rs.2.85 Crores but more than Rs'6 Crores was misused by A l and transferred to her relatives accounts causing loss to the company and without her interrogation' the amount cannot be recovered. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition' 4 r

6. Learned Additional public prosecutor alsr opposed bail stating that allegations against the petitioners rre severe in nature and huge amount of Rs.5.72 Crores is Ii. rolved in this case and the same has to be recovered and th: e is a strong Iikelihood of absconding ot the petitioners, if barl i i granted. As such, petitioners are not entitled for bail and prz. ed to dismiss Lhis petition. 7 . Considering the submissions made by bo _r the counsel and the material on record while arguing the matt r the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted tha he Company Directors threatened the father of A. 1 and extrac,r d an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs along with her gold ornaments. A. L also lodged a complaint before police against the Director.: and other employees of Company, whereas the defact c complainant admitted that he gave Rs.3O Lakhs, and it is r ot extortion. Petitioners gave an undertaking on 05.09.2025 r rat they will pay Rs.7O Lakhs which itself shows that petition€.s herein are accused and mis-appropriated the r mount of company. The documents filed by the Addi ional public Prosecutor and the defacto complainant shows tlr t allegations are against A. I only and there are no specific allegation of misappropriation of funds against the oth r accused. -5- a Considering the severity of allegations against petitioner No. 1/A. 1 this Court is not inclined to grant bail to A. 1. However, petitioner Nos.2 to 6/A.2 to A.5 & A.8 are granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions : I 11 The petitioner Nos.2 to 61A.2 to A.5 & A.8 shall surrender before the Station House Ofhcer, EOW (Cyberabad) Police Station, Cyberabad District within two weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer sha1l release petitioner Nos.2 to 6 / A.2 to A.5 & A.8 on bail on their executing a personal bond for Rs.25,O00/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties, for the like surn each. The petitioner Nos.2 to 61A.2 Lo A.5 & A.8 shall appear before the concerned SHO at I 1:OO a.m., on every WednesdaY for a period of eight (8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, as artd when required.

111. The petitioner Nos.2 to 61A.2 to A.5 & A'8 shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482 (21 of BNSS and co-operate with the Investigating Ofhcer in investigating the case.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed granting anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.2 to 61A.2 to A.5 & A.8 ald the criminal petition in sofar as peLitioner No.l/A. 1 is 6 t concerned it is dismissed. Miscellaneous petrt:ns, if aly, pending shall stand closed sD/- AHMI: ii-t,Htbt [llH //TRUE COPY// \ *crtoH oFFlcER To, I\/aoistrate. Ranga Reddy iiittii"iit Kukatpally' Cyberat'i d 1 The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional J-urj :ral First Class 2 Th;station uoute orice''i"dwicit"t'olO polite star )n cvberabad tn" state c Telangana at 3 Two ccs to Public "r"t"""t"i'niiilt"oirt-# Hvderabad [OUT] . ;#U; s'r.i c sn"'n Reddv Advocate [oPUC] .^' I El" Goud' Advocate [oPUc] i" 6t' n "" 6. Two CD CoPies -sntxnar ABK /PSL 'I'4- E I I ! HIGH COURT DATED: 0511212025 !!a*r -. :- i:-i OROER CRLP.No.14909 of 2025 'tH[: .\ I 1 Jll 2[?E -4. 1 * t * :--' PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q ".?14 Ft'*