CRLP/14524/2026 of Routhula Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana on 23 September 2026

ORDER:

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

2. The petitioner is arrayed as the accused No.7 in Crime No.134 of 2026 on the file of Laxmidevipally Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, facing accusations under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 335, 336(3),338, 340 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, “TSPDFEA”).

3. Heard Mr.P.V.Krishnamachary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused No.1, in furtherance of his common intention and in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy with the other accused, induced the complainant and his family members to deposit substantial amounts of money by falsely representing that he was a labour contractor with ITC Paper Board, Bhadrachalam, and by promising to provide contract works and make monthly payments. In the course of the alleged transactions, fake partnership deeds, house sale deeds, work orders, contract agreements, sale agreements, promissory notes, and other valuable documents were allegedly prepared and represented as genuine, thereby inducing the victims to part with substantial sums of money. Thereafter, accused No.1 allegedly failed to repay the amounts, and the cheques issued towards repayment were dishonoured by the bank. On the basis of the complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

4.2. During the course of investigation, the role of the petitioner allegedly came to light on the basis of the confessional statement of accused No.1. It is alleged that the petitioner is a friend of accused No.1 and facilitated the transportation of accused No.1 and his family members to Vijayawada. It is further alleged that accused No.1 transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner through UPI. According to the prosecution, pursuant to an understanding between them, the petitioner had agreed to assist accused No.1 for consideration of Rs.2 lakhs and that the petitioner has been continuing to assist accused No.1.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is contended that, even according to the averments in the complaint and the statement of the victim, the name of the petitioner is not referred to, much less is there any allegation attributing any overt act to him in relation to the offences allegedly committed by accused No.1 and his associates. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had merely facilitated the travel of accused No.1 to Vijayawada on 27.06.2026 in his vehicle, while the family members of accused No.1 were transported to Vijayawada in two other vehicles. Thus, according to the petitioner, his role was confined to assisting accused No.1 and his family members in travelling from Bhadrachalam to Vijayawada at the request of accused No.1, and there is no allegation that the petitioner participated in making any promise to the victims or in collecting any amount from them.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that, as the police were insisting upon the petitioner’s presence, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.27925 of 2026, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to direct the police not to insist upon his presence without any justifiable ground. It is further submitted that all the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years, except the offence under section 338 of BNS and Section 5 of TSPDFEA. Learned counsel contends that the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not attract the said offences against the petitioner. In the circumstances, submitting that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed, and apprehending coercive action at the hands of the police, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submits that the petitioner’s name came to light during the investigation pursuant to the statement of accused No.1. It is submitted that the investigation is still in progress and is at a nascent stage. According to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the prima facie evidence regarding UPI money transactions corroborates the statement of accused No.1 with regard to the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the crime. It is further submitted that the investigation conducted so far has revealed that the petitioner assisted and conspired with accused Nos.1 to 6. As the investigation is at a nascent stage and the presence of the petitioner may be required for custodial interrogation, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.7 is that he assisted Accused No.1 in evading apprehension and facilitating concealment of the offences, thereby allegedly participating in the conspiracy with the other accused.

9. It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the possibility of his fleeing from justice or influencing the witnesses, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. As held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court, at this stage, is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings on disputed questions of fact, but must balance personal liberty with the requirement of a fair and effective investigation.

10. In the present case, the petitioner’s alleged role, on the material presently available, is confined to assisting Accused No.1 and his family members in avoiding apprehension by transporting them from Bhadrachalam to Vijayawada, for which a payment is also alleged to have been made. There is, however, no allegation that the petitioner directly induced the victims to part with their money, represented the alleged transactions as genuine, prepared or exhibited the fabricated documents, or personally received the amounts deposited by the victims. The allegations concerning inducement and use of fake or fabricated documents are attributed to Accused No.1 and the other accused, and the amounts deposited, the persons who deposited them, and the acts attributed to the respective accused have been specifically set out. Thus, the petitioner’s alleged role appears to be subsequent to, or in connection with, the acts attributed to the principal accused.

11. The allegation that the petitioner assisted Accused No.1 in evading apprehension undoubtedly requires investigation; however, the mere existence of such allegation does not, by itself, establish the necessity of custodial interrogation. The requirement of custody must be assessed with reference to the petitioner’s specific role and the material available in the case. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. No specific material is presently placed before the Court indicating that he is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the investigation or judicial process. Further, no convincing circumstance has been demonstrated at this stage to establish that his custodial interrogation is indispensable for the investigation.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, and bearing in mind that the grant of anticipatory bail does not confer immunity from investigation and that the petitioner remains bound to cooperate with the investigating agency, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. In particular, there is no allegation that the petitioner directly induced the victims or collected any amounts from them; he has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation; and there is no convincing material demonstrating the necessity of his custodial interrogation. Accordingly, anticipatory bail may be granted, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his availability for investigation and to safeguard the investigation and judicial process from interference.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/accused No.7 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Laxmidevipally Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District on or before 075.10.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

(B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of ten

(10) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (D) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (E) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (F) The petitioner 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 petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

14. 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: 23.09.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14524 OF 2026

DATE: 23.09.2026

CHS