The High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15O91 of 2OZS DATE: O2.L2.2O25 BETWEEN: Oruganti Mahesh Reddy .....petitioner/accused No. 1 And State of Telangana, 'Chaita.nyapuri Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High C)ourt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. . . . . . Respondent/ complainant ORDER lt'his criminal Petition is filed under section 4g2 of Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for short tsNSSJ for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as 2 SKS'J Crl.P.No.1509L of 2026 accused No.1 in Crime No.847 of 2025 before the Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(21,351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint lodged on O l.Og.2025 by Smt. Mallepatiy Dhanalakshmi, who stated that two persons, Oruganti Mahesh and Thatiparthi Aruna Kumar, had. cheated her of Rs..62,22,L5O1-. She reported that she paid them the amount in multiple transactions between February and September 2023 on the assurance that they would return the principal within 20 months and register a property as security. They failed to pay the promised monthly returns from November 2023 and did not register any property. Instead, they allegedly threatened her with dire consequences if she approached the police. She later claimed that a total amount of Rs.99,55,43O l- was due and submitted supporting transaction documents.

3. Heard Sri C.S.N. Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kuman', learned 3 sKs,J Crl.P.No.15O9l of 2o.25 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner su,bmitted that the dispute was purely civil in nature relating to recovery of mone)' and had been wrongly converted into a criminal case and that the petitioner, arrayed as accused No.1, was not engagt:d in money lending or any linancial establishment activilr and that the complainant never paid any amount to him but only to accused No.2, which was evident from his bank statements. He contended that the alregations were false, malicious, and engineered to implicate the petitioner withou.t any basis and that the petitioner himself was a victim who had lent money to accused No.2 and that the newly added charges were intended only to secure prosecution. Thereft>re, he prayed the court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. on the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the submissions *"a" by lhe learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. Further, the investigation was not yet completed. 4 sKs,J Crl.P.No.15091 of 2ol25 At this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.l and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in no way connected with the business of accused No.2 and that all the deposits were collected only by accused No.2, who has already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Except for the allegation that the petitioner introduced L.W.l to the company of accused No.2 and represented that if she invested in that company she would receive a 5o/o commission every 3O days, there is no material to show that any amount was deposited in the account of the petitioner or that any money was received by him. He further contends that the petitioner is in fact a victim at the hands of accused No.2. However, the record reveals that the petitioner was also actively involved in collecting the deposits. Further, the investigation is at a nascent stage. At this stage, it cannot be said that the i i \ I ,i I i I l l: t; t, i i i I I t i I 1t 1, 5 sKs,J Crl.P.No.15O9L of 2O2S petitioner had no role in the alleged offence. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closec[ SD/. P PONNA KRISHNA STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1.' The lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate cum lv AJCJ at LB.Nagar, Rachakonda.

2. The Sl:ation House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyder;rbad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr. C S N RAJU, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two tlD Copies RC/PSL k/ HIGH COURT DATED i 0211212025 ORDER CRLP.No.15091 of 2025 .r,, 'I i , ;: ._-) ir' t J" IHESi A.i lr.1t' 3 ii ,i ilil ZUiIi 7 * Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Dismissed. cofl'A % #,^ ,f