Neelam Narsimha vs The State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.95 of 2026 on the file of the Chandur Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Section 5 of Section 5 in Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, ‘TPDFEAct’) and Section 3 read with 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘PCMCS Act’).

Heard Mr.Boddupally Ramesh, 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 another accused, introduced the de facto complainant to a digital online scheme operated in the name of “Eagle Coin”. It is alleged that the petitioner represented that an investment in the said scheme would yield returns of three to four times the amount invested within a short period and further encouraged the de facto complainant to participate in chain-link recruitment. Acting upon such representations, the de facto complainant and several other persons invested amounts collectively exceeding Rs.20 lakhs. It is alleged that, after collecting substantial sums from the victims, the accused became irresponsible and failed to honour the representations made by them, thereby cheating the de facto complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 and that he had himself invested amounts in the said scheme, thereby placing him on the same footing as the victims. According to learned counsel, the business model involved chain-link recruitment, and the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the management, administration, or day-to-day operations of the alleged business. It is further submitted that the petitioner merely participated in the chain as an investor and, therefore, cannot be said to have managed or controlled the affairs of the company. Learned counsel also submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation, particularly as the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and to abide by any condition that may be imposed by the Court. In view of the limited role allegedly attributed to the petitioner, learned counsel accordingly prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submits that the police report specifically refers to the petitioner as one of the persons who induced the de facto complainant to invest in the company by representing that the investment would yield substantial returns within a short period. It is contended that the materials on record disclose the petitioner’s active involvement in inducing the victims to make investments. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the de facto complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner created an ID in the company in the name of the de facto complainant, thereby indicating his involvement in the transaction. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective and comprehensive investigation into the allegations. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

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

The specific allegation against the petitioner is that, in the guise of offering an investment opportunity carrying high and assured returns, he induced the de facto complainant and other investors to invest in the alleged online scheme, resulting in a collective loss exceeding Rs.20 lakhs. Thus, a prima facie role is attributed to the petitioner in inducing the victims to make investments. However, at this stage, the prosecution has not placed any specific material to establish that the petitioner was part of the management of the online company or exercised any managerial, administrative, or operational control over its affairs. There is also no specific material indicating that he received, handled, controlled, or managed the amounts invested by the victims.

While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court must balance the nature and gravity of the allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner with his right to personal liberty and the requirements of a fair investigation. The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, recognized the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail, to be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The principles governing such relief were reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, including consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant’s role, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the possibility of fleeing from justice.

In the present case, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as required. There is no material at this stage indicating that he is likely to abscond, evade the process of law, influence witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the investigation. Though the prosecution asserts that custodial interrogation is necessary, no specific investigative requirement has been demonstrated to establish why such custody is indispensable, particularly in the absence of material showing that the petitioner received or managed the invested amounts.

Accordingly, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the absence of material showing his involvement in the management or financial handling of the online company, his willingness to cooperate, and the absence of any demonstrated likelihood of absconding or interfering with the investigation, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation has not been shown to be necessary at this stage. The grant of anticipatory bail shall not, however, impede a fair and effective investigation, and the petitioner shall remain bound to cooperate with the investigating agency.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Chandur Police Station, Nalgona District on or before 05.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier.

The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation.

The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

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.