Mr.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.14 in FIR No.642 of 2024 on the file of Jagitial Town Police Station, Jagitial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) read with 3(5) 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 21, 22, 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

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 the other accused, introduced the complainant, other victims, and members of the general public to a fraudulent Trust Wallet Application, namely, “RIXOS TRADE APP,” and induced them to invest money in the said application and in a chain-market scheme. It is alleged that the petitioner and the other accused induced the victims and other gullible members of the public to part with their money by making representations that they would earn abnormal profits and would also be provided free foreign trips. It is further alleged that, after collecting substantial amounts from the victims, the accused misappropriated the amounts so collected. Pursuant to the report dated 18.10.2024, a crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and has been implicated solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.13, recorded on 03.12.2025. 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 said alleged confessional statement, the petitioner had merely arranged foreign trips.

Learned counsel further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that, by making false assurances, he, arrayed as Accused No.14, collected huge amounts from the victims and utilised the same for his personal benefit, and that he was involved in the alleged fraudulent investment scheme operated through the “RIXOS TRADE APP.” According to the learned counsel, however, 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 ordinary 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.13, 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 founded solely upon the statement of a co-accused and that there is no other material connecting him with the alleged offences. The petitioner, however, is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. It is further submitted that he is a permanent resident and that 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 specific allegations have been made against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner, along with the other accused, floated online investment applications and engaged in activities intended to entice innocent members of the public to invest their money. After inducing the victims to part with substantial amounts, the accused allegedly misappropriated the amounts so collected.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the role of the petitioner came to light from the statement of Accused No.13 and that the investigation is still in progress. It is contended that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective and comprehensive 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 is that Accused Nos.1 to 9, with dishonest intention, created and operated a fraudulent Trust Wallet Application and induced innocent members of the public to invest by promising abnormal profits, and thereafter misappropriated the amounts so collected. As against the petitioner, the allegation of involvement in the fraudulent investment scheme is primarily based on the statement/confessional statement of Accused No.13. Except for the said statement, no independent or corroborative material has, at this stage, been pointed out to connect the petitioner with the creation, operation or promotion of the alleged Trust Wallet Application or the chain-marketing scheme. The only other circumstance relied upon is the petitioner's admitted role in arranging foreign trips, which, according to him, was part of his ordinary 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 a detailed appreciation of the rival versions, as such an exercise may prejudice the parties at the stage of trial. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS is to be exercised upon consideration of the circumstances relevant to the apprehension of arrest and the necessity for custodial detention. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, 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 fleeing from justice or repeating the offence, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the impact of anticipatory bail on 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 based on the statement of a co-accused, the absence of independent material connecting him with the creation or operation of the alleged fraudulent Trust Wallet Application or the chain-marketing scheme, his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the absence of specific material indicating any likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail. This is also having regard to the fact that Accused Nos.1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 have already been enlarged on bail, while Accused Nos.2, 4, 6 and 9 have obtained anticipatory bail. This Court, however, expresses no final opinion on the merits of the allegations or the evidentiary value of the statement of Accused No.13. The petitioner shall accordingly be entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate 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.