Mr. 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.107 of 2026 on the file of Cyber Police Station, Pune City, Maharashtra for the offences punishable under Sections and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 204, 308(2), 3(5), 318(4), 319(2) 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 in Pune city, alleging that, between 05.08.2026 and 08.08.2026, an unknown person called the complainant from Mobile No. 919240219939, impersonating officers of a bank and the police. The caller informed the complainant that her name was linked to offences relating to theft, money laundering and human trafficking. By keeping her on a video call while dressed in police uniform and creating a fear of arrest, the caller induced the complainant to transfer an amount of Rs.70,00,000/-. It was subsequently revealed that the said amount had been transferred on two occasions were routed to the account of M/s. Punapureddi Pakashastralu Private Limited. Based on the complaint, Crime No.107 of 2026 came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an entrepreneur, invested in the company and holds 50% shares in the M/s. Punapureddi Pakashastralu Private Limited and had earlier joined as a Director in August, 2024. However, he tendered his resignation from the directorship on 10.07.2026. The resignation has been recorded in the records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is further submitted that the investigation initiated by the Pune Police is being coordinated with the Haryana Police, which has registered Crime No.73 of 2026 with similar allegations to that of present crime. Learned counsel further submits that, in the connected Crime No.73 of 2026, the Haryana Police have arrested Accused Nos.1 and 2, and it has been informed that the role of all persons connected with the company. In these circumstances, the petitioner apprehends arrest, though he is willing to cooperate with the investigation. It is further pleaded that the petitioner intends to approach the jurisdictional Court concerned for availing the appropriate remedies available to him in law. However, as he is apprehending arrest during transit to the jurisdictional Court, he seeks grant of transit bail to enable him to appear before the competent Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the State police have communicated with the respective State Police authority for instructions. However, it is submitted that the allegations disclose a case of financial fraud and that the amounts in question were received in the account of M/s. Punapureddi Pakashastralu Private Limited, of which the petitioner was a Director. It is further submitted that the transfer of crime proceeds have been digitally recorded and that the involvement and respective roles of the persons concerned are presently under investigation, as stated in the remand report in Crime No.73 of 2026 registered by the Haryana Police. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not raise any specific objection to the petitioner’s prayer for grant of transit bail.

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

As per the prosecution case, the amounts alleged to have been transferred from the complainant’s accounts were received in the bank account of M/s. Punapureddi Pakashastralu Private Limited. The petitioner contends that, though he was earlier a Director of the said Company, he resigned from the directorship in July, 2026, and the resignation is reflected in the official records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in the crime. His prayer is limited to transit protection to enable him to approach the competent jurisdictional Court and avail the remedies available in law.

In Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, 2023 INSC 1008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised that, in an appropriate case, a High Court or Court of Session may grant limited transit anticipatory bail where the apprehended arrest arises from an offence registered outside its territorial jurisdiction, so as to enable the applicant to approach the competent Court. Such protection is discretionary, must be moulded to the facts of each case, and is not a substitute for full-fledged anticipatory bail. It is intended to safeguard personal liberty and access to justice for a limited period, without encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the competent Court or impeding the investigation.

While ensuring that an applicant is not rendered remediless merely because the FIR is registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court approached, the Court must guard against forum shopping and ensure that the protection is confined to the minimum period necessary for approaching the competent Court.

In the present case, while the prosecution alleges receipt of the disputed amounts in the Company's account, the petitioner asserts that he had ceased to be its Director in July, 2026 and that the resignation is reflected in the official records. He is not presently arrayed as an accused and states that he is willing to cooperate with the investigation. This Court is not required, at this stage, to adjudicate upon his alleged role, the merits of the prosecution case, or the evidentiary value of the material collected, which are matters for investigation and the competent jurisdictional Court.

Having regard to the limited relief sought, the petitioner’s stated willingness to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the competent Court, and the circumstances noticed above, this Court is of the view that a limited protective order would adequately balance his right to personal liberty and access to justice with the interests of the investigation.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the petitioner's defence, this Court is of the considered view that granting limited transit anticipatory bail to the petitioner for the period specified herein, solely to enable him to approach the competent jurisdictional Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law, would serve the interests of both the petitioner and the prosecution. The competent Court shall consider any application filed by the petitioner independently and on its own merits, uninfluenced by the grant of such limited transit protection.

Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed by granting transit anticipatory bail subject to following conditions;

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.