Kanaparthi Aswani Kumar vs The State Of Telangana

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

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused in FIR No.825 of 2026 on the file of Raidurgam police station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 308(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (for short “IT Act’).

Heard Mr. Vijaya Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

The facts, in brief, are that the de facto complainant lodged a report alleging that Accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were former employees, had misused their access to his financial and electronic information and, in conspiracy with the other accused, including the petitioner, made allegations affecting his reputation and attempted to threaten, harass, and extort money and assets from him. It is alleged that Accused No. 1 demanded a sum of Rs.1 crore and that, despite a settlement and payment of the agreed amount, the alleged acts of blackmail continued, along with the initiation of criminal proceedings. It is further alleged that the petitioner, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and others made allegations concerning the complainant’s business and, by referring to certain legal transactions and proceedings before the Enforcement Directorate, had earlier lodged FIR No.62 of 2025 before the Offence Wing, CCS, which, according to the complaint, was subsequently closed for want of evidence.

The complainant further alleges that, based on information received from a confidential and verifiable source, the accused, including the petitioner, were planning to assault and kill him after threatening and extorting substantial amounts of money and assets, with the alleged intention of gaining control over him and his organisation. It is also alleged that alternative mobile numbers and e-mail IDs were being used to avoid detection and that the petitioner and Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had paid advance amounts to anti-social elements to cause harm to the complainant. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the complaint are principally directed against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and that the petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of purported information received from unnamed sources regarding an alleged plan to threaten, assault, and kill the de facto complainant and extort money and property from him. It is contended that the allegations against Accused No. 3 are false, vague, and omnibus in nature, without any specific overt act or material connecting him with the alleged offences.

It is further submitted that the de facto complainant had induced the petitioner and others to invest money by promising substantial returns, pursuant to which the petitioner paid Rs.45 lakhs from his own funds and Rs.40 lakhs borrowed from his friends to Accused No. 1 through cheque and cash. Subsequently, alleging that the de facto complainant had cheated the petitioner and others, Accused No. 1 instituted O.S. No.39 of 2025 seeking recovery of Rs.3.42 crores. Hence, it is contended that the present criminal complaint is a counterblast to the pending civil proceedings arising out of the monetary transaction and investment dispute.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not prima facie made out against the petitioner, as there are no specific allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, extortion, criminal intimidation, or identity theft attributable to him. It is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has permanent roots in society, and is not likely to abscond. He is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed. It is further contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest protection.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations are grave and involve offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, extortion, criminal intimidation, conspiracy, misuse of electronic identity, and an alleged plan to abduct and assault the de facto complainant for wrongful gain. It is submitted that the disclosure statements of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 refer to the involvement of Accused No. 3 and, though such statements by themselves do not constitute substantive evidence, they constitute investigative leads requiring corroboration. The mobile phones seized during the investigation have been forwarded to the FSL, and the report is awaited.

It is further submitted that the role of the petitioner/Accused No. 3 is yet to be fully ascertained and that his custodial interrogation is required to confront him with the materials collected during the investigation, the statements of witnesses, and the traces of financial transactions. It is also apprehended that, if pre-arrest protection is granted, the petitioner may conceal or destroy electronic evidence and continue to act in concert with the co-accused. It is further submitted that the pendency of a civil suit between the petitioner and the complainant does not, by itself, render the FIR purely civil in nature, particularly having regard to the allegations of conspiracy, threat, and extortion.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the principles laid down in CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, and the recent decisions of this Court require that pre-arrest protection should not obstruct a fair and effective investigation. It is also pointed out that the petitioner's earlier application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial Court, having regard to the stage of the investigation and the possible necessity of custodial interrogation. It is therefore contended that the petitioner’s antecedents and willingness to cooperate with the investigation cannot override the gravity of the allegations and the investigative requirements in the present case. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

The allegations against the petitioner in the complaint specifically refer to his alleged involvement, along with the other accused, in damaging the reputation of the de facto complainant, falsely implicating him in criminal cases, and attempting to extract money from him. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the other accused conspired to assault and murder the de facto complainant and to take control of his business and organisation. Thus, the allegations, if ultimately established, are undoubtedly serious in nature. However, at the stage of considering the petition for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to examine the material presently available against the petitioner and whether such material discloses a reasonable necessity for his custodial interrogation.

The specific material presently available with the prosecution against the petitioner principally consists of the disclosure statements of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Though such statements may constitute investigative leads, their evidentiary value has to be assessed in accordance with law. The WhatsApp material relied upon by the petitioner, insofar as it is presently available on record, discloses direct communication between Accused Nos. 1 and 2. At this stage, there is no corresponding communication or other electronic material placed before the Court connecting the petitioner with the alleged acts. Likewise, no statement of any accused or witness, apart from the disclosure statements referred to above, has been brought to the notice of this Court which attributes any specific overt act to the petitioner. No recovery or other independent incriminating material connecting the petitioner with the alleged conspiracy has, at this stage, been demonstrated.

It is also significant that the prosecution itself states that the role of the petitioner/Accused No. 3 and the other accused is yet to be fully ascertained. The investigation is admittedly continuing, the mobile phones seized during the investigation have been forwarded to the FSL, and the FSL report is awaited. Therefore, the material relied upon by the prosecution, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is presently at the stage of investigation and requires further corroboration. It is well settled that the statement of a co-accused, by itself, ordinarily cannot constitute substantive evidence against another accused in the absence of independent corroborative material. Such a statement may undoubtedly furnish an investigative lead and may justify further investigation;

The prosecution contends that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to confront him with the material collected during the investigation. Further, the prosecution contends that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to confront him with the material collected during the investigation. Merely on the basis of a disclosure statement narrating an alleged conspiracy, and in the absence of any discovery of a fact or other independent incriminating circumstance attributable to the petitioner, custodial detention cannot be justified solely for the purpose of confronting the petitioner with such material. Additionally, the very submission of the prosecution indicates that the role of the petitioner has not yet been fully ascertained and that further material is still awaited or required to be collected. The mere possibility that custodial interrogation may assist the investigation, without demonstrating why such interrogation cannot effectively be undertaken while the petitioner remains protected from arrest, is, in the circumstances of the present case, not by itself sufficient to deny pre-arrest protection.

The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS is discretionary and is required to be exercised upon a careful balancing of the legitimate interests of a fair and effective investigation with the petitioner’s right to personal liberty. The gravity of the allegations is undoubtedly a relevant consideration, but the gravity of the allegations alone cannot substitute for an assessment of the material specifically connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The petitioner has stated that he has no criminal antecedents and has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. He has also undertaken not to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. These circumstances, though not determinative by themselves, are relevant while considering whether the petitioner’s presence for investigation can be secured through appropriate conditions without resorting to his custodial detention.

The pendency of a civil suit arising out of a monetary or investment transaction does not, by itself, render the present criminal case purely civil in nature, particularly in view of the allegations of conspiracy, extortion, criminal threats, and misuse of electronic information. Nevertheless, the existence and background of the civil dispute constitute relevant surrounding circumstances while assessing the petitioner’s individual role and the possibility that the criminal proceedings may have arisen in the context of an underlying monetary dispute. This circumstance, however, is only one factor and cannot, by itself, determine the outcome of the present petition.

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the ultimate evidentiary value of the electronic material, this Court is of the considered view that the material presently placed before it does not disclose any specific overt act, recovery, direct communication, or other independent incriminating circumstance sufficient to establish, at this stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for a fair and effective investigation. The prosecution’s apprehension regarding the possibility of interference with the investigation can adequately be addressed by imposing appropriate and stringent conditions requiring the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, remain available for interrogation as and when required, refrain from tampering with evidence, and not influence or intimidate witnesses.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the ultimate evidentiary value of the material collected during the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail deserves to be considered favourably. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to the benefit of pre-arrest protection, subject to such appropriate conditions as may be imposed to ensure his availability and cooperation during the investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions:

It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.