Bolla Ramakrishna vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of transit anticipatory bail.

This petition is filed in FIR No. 73 of 2026 registered at the Cyber Police Station, Panchkula, Haryana, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319, 336(3), 338 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”). The petitioner has approached this Court on the apprehension that, although he is presently not arrayed as an accused in the said crime, he may be arrested by the police in connection therewith.

Heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondents.

Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that a crime has been registered against the petitioner in the State of Haryana. It is alleged that, on 06.07.2026, an unknown person hacked the office laptop and WhatsApp account of the petitioner's husband’s firm, namely, M/s. R.S. Construction, and, by impersonating the petitioner's husband, caused a sum of Rs.3,16,00,000/- to be transferred from the firm's account to four different bank accounts. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- was allegedly transferred, on 07.08.2026, to the account of M/s. Punapureddi Pakashastralu Private Limited. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No.73 of 2026 came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in connection with the said crime, the Managing Director and the Director of the Company were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner was a financial investor in the Company and holds 50% of its shares. He was also a Director of the Company from the year August 2024 until 10.07.2026, and his resignation has been duly registered in the records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is, however, submitted that the petitioner has been informed that the police intend to take action against all persons connected with the Company. Although the petitioner is presently not arrayed as an accused, he apprehends his arrest and other coercive action at the hands of the police concerned.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner intends to avail himself of the appropriate remedies available under law before the competent Court. However, apprehending that he may be arrested or subjected to coercive action by the police during transit and before he is able to approach the competent Court, Thus the petitioner seeks grant of transit anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the State police have communicated with the police authorities of the respective State and sought instructions in the matter. He submits that the allegations relate to a financial fraud and that an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- was received in the account of M/s. Punapureddi Pakashastralu Private Limited, in which the petitioner was a Director. He further submits that the financial transactions have been digitally recorded and that the involvement of the persons concerned is presently under investigation, as stated in the remand report in Crime No.73 of 2026 registered by the Haryana Police. However, insofar as the petitioner’s prayer for transit anticipatory bail is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is, as of now, no specific objection.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused material available on record.

As per the prosecution case, the crime proceeds in the cyber fraud alleged to have been committed was transferred from the complainant’s account were credited to the account of M/s. Punapureddi Pakashastralu Private Limited, of which the petitioner was a Director. The financial transactions and the involvement of the persons connected with the Company are presently under investigation.

The petitioner contends that he resigned from the directorship in July, 2026, which is reflected in the records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is also not in dispute that he is presently not arrayed as an accused in the crime. His prayer is confined to limited protective relief to enable him to approach the competent jurisdictional Court and avail the remedies available under law.

It is settled that, in an appropriate case, a High Court may grant transit pre-arrest protection even where the offence in respect of which arrest is apprehended has been registered outside its territorial jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, 2023 INSC 1008, recognised such jurisdiction to enable an applicant to approach the competent Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is registered.

The exercise of such jurisdiction is discretionary and must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s conduct, the circumstances giving rise to the apprehension of arrest, his likelihood of cooperating with the investigation, and the necessity of securing his access to the jurisdictional Court. Transit anticipatory bail is only a limited protective measure and does not amount to adjudication of the applicant’s entitlement to anticipatory bail on merits. The protection must, therefore, ordinarily be for a specified and reasonable period and subject to appropriate conditions, without encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the competent Court.

In the present case, this Court is not called upon to determine the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged transactions, the effect of his resignation, or the evidentiary value or sufficiency of the material collected by the investigating agency. These matters are within the domain of the investigation and, ultimately, the jurisdictional Court. The limited issue is whether protection is warranted to enable the petitioner to approach the competent Courts having jurisdiction over the proceedings and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is presently not arrayed as an accused, his contention that his resignation is reflected in the official records, the limited nature of the relief sought, and his stated intention to approach the competent jurisdictional Court, this Court is of the considered view that a limited protective order would adequately balance the competing interests. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that transit anticipatory bail may be extended to the petitioner, for a limited period, subject to appropriate conditions. The grant of such protection shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the petitioner’s entitlement to anticipatory bail, and the jurisdictional Court shall consider any application filed by the petitioner independently and in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed by granting transit anticipatory bail subject to following conditions;

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.