CRLP/13453/2025 of Motupalli Narasimha Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 12 March 2026

ORDER:-

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/sole accused in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 556 of 2025, dated 23.12.2025, on the file of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 21(1)(2)(3) and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short, “BUDS Act”).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de-facto complainant, who is working as a Police Constable at Gajuwaka Traffic Police Station, lodged a report alleging that the petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the same station, developed close acquaintance with subordinate staff and induced them to deposit money with him by promising high and fixed monthly returns.Believing the representations made by the petitioner and reposing trust in him as a superior officer, the complainant allegedly deposited an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on different occasions from 14.06.2023 onwards. It is further alleged that the petitioner issued post-dated cheques without executing any legally enforceable documents and initially paid returns for a short period but later defaulted.The prosecution further alleges that similarly, the petitioner collected amounts from other police personnel, thereby running an unregulated deposit scheme, and defaulted in repayment. When the victims demanded repayment, the petitioner allegedly criminally intimidated them. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have cheated multiple persons and violated the provisions of the BUDS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the allegations are false, baseless, and motivated.The dispute, even if accepted, is purely civil in nature arising out of personal monetary transactions between known individuals. There is no element of cheating or fraudulent intention at the inception. The provisions of the BUDS Act are not applicable as there is no public deposit scheme, no advertisement, and no solicitation from the public. The petitioner is a government servant with a fixed place of residence and no criminal antecedents. Custodial interrogation is not required as the case is based on documentary evidence. The petitioner has already repaid the amounts and has been falsely implicated for harassment. Arrest would result in suspension and irreparable damage to his service and family.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that there are specific allegations are made against the petitioner. The petitioner abused his official position to induce subordinate staff. Multiple victims are involved, indicating a systematic scheme. The offences are serious in nature involving cheating and violation of special enactment. Investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation is necessary.

5. Considering the submissions made by both sides and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that the allegations against the petitioner are not confined to a single transaction but relate to multiple deposits collected from different individuals. The complaint prima facie discloses that the petitioner, being a superior officer, allegedly exploited the trust of subordinate staff and induced them to part with substantial amounts of money on the promise of assured returns. The contention of the petitioner is that the transactions are purely private and civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage. The allegations, on the face of the record, indicate a pattern of conduct involving inducement, collection of money, and subsequent default. Such allegations, if proved, would attract the ingredients of cheating under Section 318(4) BNS. Further, whether the provisions of the BUDS Act are attracted or not is a matter to be determined during the course of investigation and trial. At this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the said provisions are inapplicable. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and has to be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases involving serious economic offences and abuse of public office. The contention regarding absence of criminal antecedents and fixed residence, though relevant, is not sufficient in the facts of the present case to grant anticipatory bail. This Court is of the considered view that granting anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this petition and shall not influence the investigation or trial in any manner.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 13.03.2026 KKV

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13453/2025

Date: 13.03.2026 KKV