AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail.
The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime Nos.8 of 2026 on the file of the Penchikalpet Police Station, Kumarambheem Asifabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection Of Depositors Of Financial Establishments Act, 1999.
Heard Mr.Verose Sanjana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the material available on record.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that Accused No.2, along with Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5, was carrying on business activities at Kagaznagar and surrounding areas, representing to the de facto complainant and others that they were conducting multiple businesses at Hyderabad and other districts of Telangana. On such representations, they allegedly induced the complainant and other investors to invest money by assuring returns and profits of up to 5%.
It is further alleged that the accused established “Devine Group of Company” at Kapuwada, representing it to be an online trading company and assuring investors that their money would generate substantial profits and would be repaid with the promised returns. Initially, the accused allegedly paid returns for a short period to gain the confidence of the complainant and other investors and thereafter persuaded them to make larger investments.
After gaining their confidence, Accused No.2 and the other accused allegedly persuaded the complainant to invest substantial amounts, including monies collected from his friends, relatives and well-wishers. Believing their representations, the de facto complainant transferred Rs.10,00,000/- through RTGS to the bank account of Accused No.1. It is alleged that thereafter the accused closed their office and failed to return the invested amount or the promised returns. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges that Accused No.2, in furtherance of the common intention of the accused, dishonestly induced the complainant to part with his money, leading to the lodging of the complaint and registration of the present crimes.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to their close familial relationship with Accused No.4, the proprietor of the concern. Petitioner No.2 is brother of the Accused No.4 and Accused No.1 father of the Accused No. 4 who is facing selfsame allegations to that of the petitioners was granted anticipatory bail by this court. It is contended that any material allegation does not establish Petitioner’s involvement in the offence in any manner, except the general allegation that he promoted or encouraged the business activities of Accused No.4.
The petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required, and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. It is also submitted that, in other cases involving substantially similar allegations and offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, this Court had directed compliance with the mandate under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which the petitioners have scrupulously complied with. Learned counsel further submits that the principal allegations concerning collection and management of investments are directed against Accused No.4, who has already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. In view the absence of specific allegations warranting custodial interrogation, the nature of the allegations against Petitioner, and his willingness to cooperate, anticipatory bail is sought.
Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petitions, contending that the petitioners actively associated themselves with the business activities of Accused No.4 and induced the de facto complainant and other investors to part with substantial amounts by assuring attractive monthly returns.
It is submitted that, as per the material collected during investigation, the investments were made on the strength of such assurances of the accused including the petitioner indicating his alleged connection with the transactions. It is further contended that several similar crimes are pending against the petitioner and that the investigation is at a preliminary stage. According to the prosecution, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may affect the investigation. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor accordingly seeks dismissal of the petitions.
I have considered the rival submissions and have carefully perused the material on record.
The consistent stand of the petitioner is that he has been implicated solely on account of his relationship with Accused No.4 and that he neither participated in the alleged investment scheme nor induced any person to invest therein. Per contra, the prosecution asserts that the petitioner actively participated in the activities of the said concern.
Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the fact that the transactions in question were admittedly effected through banking channels and are, therefore, capable of independent verification from documentary and banking records, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be indispensable at this stage of the investigation. Significantly, the prosecution has not brought to the notice of this Court any specific circumstance suggesting that the petitioner is likely to abscond or evade the process of law, tamper with documentary evidence, or influence or intimidate any witness. On the contrary, the petitioner has expressed his unequivocal willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to comply with such conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
In the aforesaid circumstances, and while balancing the requirement of a fair and effective investigation against the petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty this Court is satisfied that the petitioner's custodial detention is not warranted at this stage. The petitioner has, therefore, made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his availability and cooperation during the course of investigation.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail in Crime Nos.08 of 2026 on the file of the Penchikalpet Police Station and Kumarambheem Asifabad District, subject to the following conditions.
The petitioner/accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Penchikalpet Police Station, on or before 07.09.2026. Upon such surrender or on arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said officer.
The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer every Thursday between 09:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.
The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile numbers and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein.
The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall they tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
The petitioner shall strictly abide by the conditions stipulated under section 482 (2) of BNSS.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.