CRLP/14720/2026 of Kothakota Sarala Vs State of Telengana on 30 September 2026

ORDER:

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

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.P.No.14720 of 2026, and upon the police report of one Jatothu Vijaya, a Crime No.536 of 2026 has been registered on the file of the Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda District. Further, in Crl.P.No.14721 of 2026, the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 4, and upon the police report of one Penugonda Gowri Prasad Kumar, a Crime No.1157 of 2025 has been registered on the file of the Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda District and in

Crl.P.No.14722 of 2026, the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, and upon the police report of one Uday Kiran, a Crime No.1841 of 2025 has been registered on the file of the Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda District, facing accusations under Sections 406, 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 21, 22, 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and under Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositor Act, 1999.

3. Since the petitioners are accused in the same crime and seek analogous relief, both Criminal Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. Heard Mr. G.Ravi Chandran, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the contention raised by the de facto complainants, in substance, is that the accused floated M/s. Trishakti Enterprises and, with deceptive inception, fraudulently collected amounts from the de facto complainants and others, whereafter they failed to repay the amounts and disappeared. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners herein are employees of the alleged accused No.1 Firm. They have neither any acquaintance with the complainants nor collected any amounts from the depositors, nor is there any material to show that any amount was received by the petitioners from the company. Thus, the allegation under Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors Act, as well as the allegations of cheating or criminal breach of trust, cannot be sustained against the petitioners. There is no material or allegation even showing the involvement of the petitioners in any criminal conspiracy, as alleged by the prosecution. He further pleads that accused No.1 is the person who ran M/s. Trishakti Enterprises and that, though the crime was registered in the year 2025, the Investigating Agency has not even taken any steps against accused No.1. However, as the petitioners came to know of the registration of the crime against them, they are ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed. Hence, the present petitions seeking anticipatory bail have been filed.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and pleaded that the petitioners have worked with the Firm and are involved in its affairs, as per the averments in the police report. The reports also refer to financial transactions and purchases made in the names of the petitioners, such as the purchase of a residential house and an Innova Crysta vehicle. If the petitioners are only employees, their investing such huge amounts probablises the diversion of the crime proceeds by the other accused and, in turn, raises a prima facie inference regarding the conspiracy and their involvement in the offence. However, the investigation is still underway. He fairly submits that the petitioners are responding to the investigation. Nonetheless, the custodial presence of the petitioners may be required for effective investigation and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

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

8. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioners is that they had taken part in the affairs of the Firm, M/s. Trishakti Enterprises, along with the prime accused, and, in conspiracy with him, with deceptive inception, collected amounts from the gullible public and misappropriated the same for their own use. It is further alleged that one vehicle and a residential house were purchased in the names of the petitioners. At this stage, the Court is not ordinarily expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the truthfulness of the allegations or to record definitive findings on the questions of fact or law. The petitioners plead that they have not received any amount and that there is no material indicating their involvement in the offence requiring investigation. At this stage, this Court need not examine the depth or correctness of the defence claim. Nonetheless, having regard to the prosecution version that the petitioners are responding to the investigation, and the materials placed before this Court in the present petition only showing the purchase of property in the name of petitioner No.1, without there being any other incriminating material indicating that any crime proceeds have been utilized, and in the absence of any specific ground making out the requirement of custodial interrogation, coupled with the petitioners’ readiness to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners’ prayer for grant of anticipatory bail can be positively considered, subject to the following conditions, to secure the interest of the investigation and prosecution.

9. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioners/accused shall surrender before the Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda District, on or before 15.10.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release them on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. (B) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Wednesday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of their release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The petitioners shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

(D) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (E) The petitioners shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (F) The petitioners shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (G) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioners liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

10. 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.

_________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 30.09.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.14720, 14721 and 14722 of 2026

DATE: 30.09.2026

mmr