CRLP/13329/2026 of Thakur Rathan Singh alias Thakur Siva Rathan Singh Vs The State of Telangana on 2 September 2026

ORDER:

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

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in FIR No.77 of 2026 on the file of Kagaznagar Town police station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

3. Heard Mr. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused Nos.1 to 4 established a company under the name and style of “Divine Group” at Kagaznagar Town and represented that they were engaged in various businesses, including online trading. They allegedly induced the complainant to invest money by assuring returns/profits of approximately 5% per month along with repayment of the principal. Initially, certain returns were allegedly paid to gain his confidence, pursuant to which he was induced to invest larger amounts. Believing their representations, the complainant allegedly transferred a total sum of Rs.17 lakhs through banking channels from his account to an account maintained by the accused.

4.2. It is further alleged that, after receiving the amount, the accused closed their office and failed to repay the principal despite repeated assurances, stopped responding to the complainant’s calls and switched off their mobile phones. When the complainant allegedly visited their residence at Hyderabad to recover his money, the accused allegedly unleashed dogs to intimidate him, compelling him to leave after waiting there for a considerable period. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint, resulting in registration of the present crime.

5.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as no specific overt act or particular role constituting the offences under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC has been attributed to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner is already on regular bail in Crime No.23 of 2026 of the same Police Station, arising out of the same financial transaction, though registered as a separate crime.

5.2. Learned Counsel further submits that, at the initial stage, the Investigating Agency issued notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Subsequently, Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, “TPDFE Act”) was added, giving rise to the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation.

5.3. It is also submitted that, in a connected crime, accused Nos.1 to 5 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court, taking note of the fact that the transactions were through banking channels and custodial interrogation was not indispensable. According to the learned Counsel, the allegations in the present case are likewise supported principally by bank records and other documentary material capable of independent verification without custodial interrogation.

5.4. Learned Counsel submits that there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding or tampering with the evidence. The petitioner is a permanent resident, ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. On these grounds and on the principle of parity, anticipatory bail is sought.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the crime was initially registered against the petitioner and three other accused under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC and that Section 5 of the TPDFE Act was subsequently added based on the statements of the listed witnesses.

6.2. It is submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage. Notices under Section 94 of the BNSS have been issued to the concerned bankers to secure relevant account and transaction records, and the Registration and Transport Authorities have also been approached to trace the movable and immovable properties allegedly connected with the accused. Bank records, transaction details and other documentary material are still being collected, verified and analysed.

6.3. The prosecution further relies upon the petitioner’s alleged antecedents involving similar offences and contends that the present case forms part of an organised and systematic financial fraud involving several persons. It is submitted that custodial interrogation may be necessary to trace the money trail, verify transactions, identify and secure assets, and ascertain the roles of the petitioner and other persons involved.

6.4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contends that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may enable the petitioner to tamper with financial or other evidence, influence witnesses, conceal relevant information, or conceal, alienate or otherwise deal with the assets allegedly connected with the offence. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner’s alleged antecedents, the stage of investigation and the seriousness of the alleged economic offence, dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition is sought.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

8. The allegations arise out of financial transactions effected through banking channels and are substantially capable of verification from documentary and electronic records. As per the prosecution, notices under Section 94 of the BNSS have already been issued to the concerned bankers for securing KYC documents, transaction particulars and other relevant records, and the principal witnesses have been examined. Thus, the material relating to the alleged transactions is largely documentary.

9. Though the prosecution contends that custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail and identify the assets of the accused, no specific circumstance has been shown as to why the investigation cannot be effectively conducted by securing the petitioner’s presence and cooperation without arrest. Mere assertion that custodial interrogation may be useful is insufficient, particularly when the relevant banking and documentary records can independently be obtained, verified and analysed by the Investigating Agency.

10. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized the protective purpose of anticipatory bail while permitting appropriate conditions to ensure effective investigation. Though the alleged offences are economic offences involving several depositors, such classification does not, by itself, bar anticipatory bail. The Court must consider the nature of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the material collected, the possibility of interference, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

11. In the present case, the complaint attributes no specific overt act to the petitioner beyond the general allegation that the petitioner/accused along with the other accused induced the complainant to invest money. No specific material has presently been placed to show that the petitioner personally received the amount, operated the relevant bank account, diverted funds, fabricated documents, or otherwise played a distinct role necessitating custodial interrogation. His precise role, if any, remains a matter for investigation and trial, and no opinion on the merits is expressed.

12. It is further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 5 have already been granted anticipatory bail and that the petitioner is on regular bail in connected crimes arising out of analogous allegations. While parity is not to be applied mechanically, where the allegations and transactions are substantially similar and no distinguishing circumstance requiring custodial arrest is demonstrated, consistency in the exercise of judicial discretion assumes relevance.

13. The petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents have also been considered. However, mere registration of previous cases, without regard to their status, the nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s specific role therein, cannot by itself conclusively justify denial of anticipatory bail. Such antecedents are relevant but must be assessed in the context of the present case.

14. The alleged transactions took place in October, 2022, whereas the present crime was registered on 10.03.2026. Though delay by itself is not determinative, the passage of time is relevant when considered with the age of the transactions, the earlier issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, examination of witnesses, and the steps already taken to collect banking and other documentary material.

15. The petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation. The prosecution’s apprehensions regarding non- cooperation and protection of the interests of the investigation can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

16. Accordingly, having regard to the documentary nature of the transactions, payments through banking channels, examination of material witnesses, issuance of notices under Sections 94 and 35(3) of the BNSS, the material already collected, the petitioner’s existing bail in a connected crime, the absence of any specific overt act and the absence of material demonstrating that custodial interrogation is indispensable, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail deserves favourable consideration.

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

a) Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Kaghaznagar Town police station, Kumrambheem Asifabad on or before 16.08.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of their arrest, the Station House Officer shall release them on bail upon him executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

b) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer every Thursday between 09:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for a period of ten (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

c) The petitioner shall furnish their complete residential addresses and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the proceedings before the trial court.

d) The petitioner shall neither directly nor indirectly induce, threaten, influence, nor contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

e) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions by the petitioners, the prosecution shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps seeking cancellation of bail.

18. It is, however, made clear that the observations contained herein are only prima facie and are confined to the consideration of the present petition. They shall not influence the Investigating Agency or

the Trial Court in considering the merits of the case, which shall be decided independently and in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ Date: 02.09.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J

MRKR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13329 OF 2026

02.09.2026 MRKR