Shai Farooq Basha & Anr. 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 petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 7 in Crime No. 81 of 2026 on the file of the Undavelly Police Station, Jogulamba Gadwal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

Heard Mr. P. Animi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent -State.

The relevant facts, in brief, are that accused No.1, who is running a business in the name of ‘ZN Auto Mobiles and Consulting Service’, got acquainted with the de-facto complainant, who later informed that accused No.1, along with petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 7 and the other accused, are jointly engaged in the business of buying and selling second-hand cars, lorries and trucks. They represented that if the money was invested in their business, she would earn high profits. Believing their words, the de-facto complainant is said to have deposited a total amount of Rs.3,94,14,000/- on various dates. The specific allegation against petitioner No.1/accused No.5 is that he is a partner of accused No.1 and helped to withdraw the cash through cheques from the Bank. In this regard, petitioner No.2/accused No.7 is shown as RTO Agent, Karnool, and an associate involved in the second-hand vehicle business, wherein the accused induced the complainant to invest. Based on the report, the crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the offence without any basis. As per the de-facto complaint, the alleged amount invested was given to the accused No.1, and the petitioners never interfered with the financial transactions. Further, he pleads that the allegation that the petitioner is an associate/partner of accused No.1 is false and incorrect and that the petitioner is an employee of accused No.1. The allegation of withdrawal of the amount by him is that he withdrawn the said amount as per the instructions of accused No.1, and there is no material indicating that the amount withdrawn by him was returned to petitioner No.1. He further pleads that there is no overt act shown against petitioner No.2 in the offence, except the alleged introduction by accused No.1 and the inducement said to have been made by the petitioner. The material at any stage does not make out any essential ingredient of the alleged offence and does not make out any prima facie case against the petitioner. The petitioners are ready and willing to furnish sureties and cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Thus, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and pleads that the investigation is still undergoing. He further pleads that the names of the petitioners have been specifically referred to by the complainant and that petitioner No.1/accused No.5 had withdrawn the amounts upon taking the cheques of the de-facto complainant and petitioner No.2/accused No.7 is involved in the second-hand vehicle business of the accused, who induced the de-facto complainant to make the investment. The petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 7 are unavailable for investigation and their custodial interrogation is required. Petitioner No.1 is essential insofar as petitioner No.2 may be necessary for conducting an effective investigation. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Having carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record, the specific allegation against the petitioners is that they are associated with the second-hand vehicle business of accused No.1, who induced the de-facto complainant, and that they introduced the de-facto complainant to invest the money by representing that there would be huge returns. Petitioner No.1/accused No.5 is the partner and is associated with accused No.1 and has also taken part in withdrawing the cash from the de-facto complainant's account, which was got opened at the instance of the accused, without any knowledge. However, there is no specific act referred against petitioner No.2/accused No.7. It is settled position that, at the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not ordinarily expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations or record an effective conclusion/findings on the disputed questions of law.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra^{11.(2011) 1 SCC 694} held that the nature of gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing for justice, the likelihood of repetition of a similar offence, the possibility of false implication and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or obstructing the investigation are among the relevant factors to be considered while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.

In the instant case, petitioner No.1/accused No.5 is pleaded, as per the prosecution, to be a partner of the alleged firm which is involved in the offence. The specific overt act as to the withdrawal of the de-facto complainant's amount was specified. The prosecution is asserting that his presence is essential for custodial interrogation to ascertain his involvement and the other connected events of the accused. Further, it is also pleaded that petitioner No.1/accused No.5 is unavailable to the prosecution.

The Supreme Court in State represented by the CBI Vs. Anil Sharma^{22.(1997) 7 SCC 187} held that the importance of custodial interrogation where the investigating agency requires effective questioning of the accused for the purpose of eliciting information relevant to the investigation.

Having regard to the depth of the allegations against the petitioners and the requirement of custodial interrogation pleaded by the prosecution, the prayer of the petitioner No.1/accused No.5 to the extent bail is found not convincing. Hence, pre-arrest bail with regard to the petitioner No.1/accused No.5 is dismissed.

However, so far as petitioner No.2/accused No.7 is concerned, he is alleged to be an RTO agent and though it is stated that he is involved in the business, except the alleged inducement to invest the amount, no other specific overt act is attributed to him. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that, in the absence of any specific allegation against petitioner No.2/accused No.7 and his unequivocal willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and even the prosecution has not asserted any requirement of custodial interrogation, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail deserves consideration. However, his presence and cooperation can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions, so as to safeguard the investigation and the interests of the prosecution.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is party 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.