Sri Mohsin Khan vs The State Of Telangana

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

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.6 in FIR No.200 of 2022 on the file of Central Crime station, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

Heard Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the General Manager (Finance), Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (TGMDC), lodged a report alleging that forged bank guarantees had been submitted by certain unsuccessful bidders in connection with sand excavation contracts. TGMDC had invited tenders for the excavation of 25 sand reaches situated on the Manair River across various Mandals of Peddapalli District. Upon completion of the tender process, the successful bidders were issued Letters of Intent and were required, as a precondition for award of the contracts, to furnish bank guarantees and execute agreements with TGMDC.

Accordingly, M/s. Swarna Electricals & Civil Contracts, M/s. Salvo Explosives & Chemicals Pvt. Limited, and M/s. Om Dhar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. submitted four bank guarantees purportedly issued by the State Bank of India, Bhowanipur Branch, Kolkata. However, the said branch allegedly informed TGMDC that none of the four bank guarantees had been issued by it, thereby indicating that the guarantees were forged and fabricated. It is alleged that the accused persons, knowing that the bank guarantees were fake, submitted the same with the intention of inducing TGMDC to execute the agreements in their favour and thereby obtain wrongful gain, while exposing the Corporation to potential financial loss. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant sought initiation of criminal action for the offences relating to forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy, and requested a detailed investigation to identify all persons involved in the creation and submission of the forged bank guarantees and to initiate appropriate action against them.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an entrepreneur engaged in minor civil contracts and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is contended that the petitioner’s role was confined to introducing Mr. Venkatesh of Sri Balaji Infra to a person who represented that he could arrange the required bank guarantees. According to the learned Counsel, beyond such introduction, the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the preparation, procurement, issuance, authentication, transmission, or submission of the bank guarantees, which were admittedly transmitted through the Structured Financial Messaging System (SFMS).

It is further submitted that the petitioner was neither named in the original complaint nor arrayed as an accused in the FIR and that he came to know of his implication only in July, 2026, when the police allegedly informed him that he had been added as an accused through an undisclosed adding memo. A copy of the said adding memo has not been furnished to him. According to the learned Counsel, no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner, nor is there any material to indicate that he prepared, procured, issued, or submitted any forged bank guarantee, or that he had knowledge of the alleged forgery.

It is also contended that, since the bank guarantees were transmitted through the secured SFMS banking system, the petitioner had no reason to suspect their authenticity. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated nearly four years after registration of the FIR, without disclosure of the reasons stated in the alleged adding memo. It is pointed out that the principal accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in the very same crime and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to similar relief on the ground of parity.

It is further submitted that the prosecution case rests predominantly upon documentary and electronic evidence, which is already in the custody of the Investigating Agency, and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is therefore not necessary. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of Hyderabad, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. On these grounds, learned Counsel seeks grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In support of his submissions, learned Counsel placed reliance upon Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein it has been held, as relied upon by the petitioner, that anticipatory bail serves as a safeguard of personal liberty; that the gravity of the accusation, by itself, cannot justify denial of such relief; and that arrest should not be resorted to as a matter of routine, particularly where custodial interrogation is not warranted and the accused is cooperating with the investigation. Learned Counsel further relied upon Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581, in support of the proposition that the offence of forgery can be attributed to the person who makes the false document and not merely to a person who is alleged to have facilitated or benefited from its use. Reliance was also placed upon Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 457, wherein, according to the learned Counsel, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that arrest should not be treated as punitive in character and that the necessity for custodial interrogation must be independently assessed, keeping in view the requirements of the investigation and the fundamental right to personal liberty.

On the aforesaid grounds, learned Counsel prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and contending that the petitioner is actively involved in the offences alleged in the crime. It is submitted that the tenders quoted by TGMDC for sand acquisition, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were furnished four bank guarantees purportedly issued by the State Bank of India, Bhowanipur branch, Kolkata, which was subsequently found to be fake. During investigation the Investigating officer examined the complainant and the other material witnesses collected relevant documents obtained ROC and bank records verified the bank guarantees with the concerned banks. It is further submitted that the investigation disclosed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had subleased the contract to Sri Balaji Infra and that its representative approached the petitioner through another accused for arranging bank guarantees. According to the prosecution, the petitioner demanded a goodwill amount of 23% approximately 69.25 lakhs for arranging bank guarantees directed that the amount be credited to the account of M/s.Suvarna Agro Farms and through accused No.4 facilitated the procurement of the forged bank guarantees. The prosecution relies upon the statements of witnesses, account statement and whats app conversation to prima facie connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and receipt of part of the funds. He further contends that the investigation has yielded sufficient material against the petitioner and is still in progress to unearth the involvement of other persons. It is argued that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage likely to hamper investigation by enabling the petitioner to evade investigation. On these grounds dismissal of anticipatory bail application is sought.

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

The gravamen of the prosecution case is that forged bank guarantees, purportedly issued by the State Bank of India, Bhawanipur Branch, Kolkata, were furnished before TGMDC for the purpose of securing contracts for sand excavation. In support of its case, the prosecution relies upon documentary and electronic evidence, including bank records, statements of witnesses, and WhatsApp conversations, to establish the alleged involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the offences. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he facilitated the arrangement of the bank guarantees through the co-accused and received a part of the consideration in connection therewith. The petitioner, however, asserts that his role was confined merely to introducing the parties and that he neither prepared nor procured or submitted the alleged forged bank guarantees.

At this stage, this Court is not required to adjudicate upon the correctness of the rival versions or to return a final finding as to whether the petitioner possessed the requisite knowledge or intention, or whether his alleged acts constitute participation in the conspiracy. These are matters which are required to be established on the basis of evidence during the course of investigation and, ultimately, at trial. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian (supra), the offence of forgery is primarily attributable to the maker of the false document, while the criminal liability of any other person would depend upon evidence establishing the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against such person.

The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail are well settled in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra). The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused absconding, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses are relevant considerations. At the same time, the gravity of the accusation, by itself, cannot constitute the sole ground for refusing anticipatory bail. Arrest is not to be treated as a routine measure, and the necessity for custodial interrogation must be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. In Pradeep N. Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that arrest is not punitive in nature and that the necessity for custodial interrogation must be independently assessed rather than inferred merely from the seriousness of the allegations.

In the present case, a substantial part of the prosecution case rests upon documentary and electronic evidence which has already been collected during the course of investigation. At this stage, the prosecution has not demonstrated any specific or compelling necessity for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, nor has it shown that any further incriminating material or recovery, which cannot otherwise be secured without custodial interrogation, is required to be obtained from him. The apprehension of the prosecution regarding possible tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses can, in the circumstances of the present case, be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions to secure the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and to ensure that he does not interfere with the course of justice.

It is also a relevant circumstance that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Though parity is not an absolute or independent right and each application for anticipatory bail must be considered on its own facts, the grant of anticipatory bail to similarly placed co-accused remains a relevant consideration. In the present case, no material has been placed before the Court, at this stage, to demonstrate that the role attributed to the petitioner is substantially graver than that attributed to the co-accused who have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the present stage of the investigation, the predominantly documentary and electronic nature of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the absence of any criminal antecedents attributed to the petitioner, the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, and the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not imperative at this stage. The interests of the prosecution can adequately be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions to secure the petitioner’s presence and cooperation during the course of investigation.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions: