Kasam Mohan Kumar vs The State Of Telangana

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

The petitioner is arrayed as the accused No.3 in FIR No.657 of 2025 on the file of Jagitial Town Police Station, Jagitial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and Sections 3 and 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 .

Heard Mr.Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner, along with Accused Nos.1 to 3, introduced the complainant and other victims, as well as members of the general public, to invest money in a fraudulent Trust Wallet Application, namely, “BITRONIX Global,” and in a chain-market scheme. They allegedly induced the victims and other gullible members of the public by promising abnormal profits and free foreign trips and, thereafter, misappropriated the amounts collected from them. Pursuant to the report dated 27.10.2025, a crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and that he has been implicated solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.2, which was recorded in December, 2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the travel business through his company, M/s. Travel Master Corporation, and that, even according to the alleged confessional statement, the petitioner had merely arranged foreign trips.

Learned counsel further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that, by giving false assurances, he, as Accused No.3, collected huge amounts of money and utilised the same for his personal benefit, and that he was involved in the alleged fraudulent investment schemes of “Bitronix Global” and “Dynance”. According to the learned counsel, these allegations are not supported by any independent or substantive material. It is contended that arranging foreign trips at the request of the other accused was part of the petitioner's regular course of business and that he is a duly organised travel agent possessing the requisite licence to carry on such business.

It is also submitted that, except for the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.2, none of the statements of the victims or the de facto complainant refers to the petitioner or attributes any specific or active role to him. Learned counsel therefore submits that the petitioner's implication is based solely on the statement of a co-accused and that there is no other material connecting him with the alleged offences. The petitioner is, however, ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. It is further submitted that he is a permanent resident and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. He is also willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner, along with Accused Nos.1 and 2, floated online investment Apps and carried on activities intended to entice innocent members of the public to invest money. After inducing the victims to part with substantial amounts, the accused allegedly misappropriated the amounts so collected. 6.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the role of the petitioner came to light from the statement of Accused No.2 and that the investigation is still in progress. It is contended that, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the petitioner's custodial interrogation may be necessary for an effective investigation. On these grounds, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that Accused Nos.1 to 3, acting with a dishonest intention, created and operated a fraudulent Trust Wallet Application and induced innocent members of the public to make investments by holding out promises of abnormal profits, and thereafter misappropriated the amounts so collected. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegations attributing his involvement in the alleged fraudulent investment scheme are primarily founded upon the statement/confessional statement of Accused No.2. Except for the said statement, no independent or corroborative material has been pointed out by the prosecution, at this stage, to demonstrate the petitioner's involvement in the creation, operation or promotion of the alleged Trust Wallet Application or in the purported chain-marketing scheme. The only circumstance otherwise relied upon by the prosecution appears to be the petitioner's admitted role in arranging foreign trips, which, according to the petitioner, was undertaken in the ordinary course of his travel business.

It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or to conduct a detailed appreciation of the respective versions of the prosecution and the defence, lest such an exercise may prejudice the parties at the stage of trial. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, as the case may be, is required to be exercised upon a careful assessment of the circumstances relevant to the apprehension of arrest and the necessity of custodial detention. The principles were subsequently elaborated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein the Supreme Court identified, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, his antecedents, the possibility of his fleeing from justice, the likelihood of repetition of the offence, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the impact of the grant of anticipatory bail upon the investigation as relevant considerations.

In the present case, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material presently available against the petitioner, the fact that his alleged involvement is substantially founded upon the statement of a co-accused, the absence, at this stage, of independent material specifically connecting him with the creation or operation of the alleged fraudulent Trust Wallet Application or the chain-marketing scheme, his expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the absence of any specific material suggesting that he is likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence, and the fact that Accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the considered view that, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the allegations or the evidentiary value of the statement of Accused No.2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail, subject to conditions to secure his availability for investigation and safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to 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. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.