CRLP/13938/2026 of Dasarath Nenavath Vs The State of Telanagana on 2 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 accused No.4 in Crime No.153 of 2026 on the file of the EOW Team-III, CCS, DD Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) r/w 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Section 5 of TSPDFE Act.

3. Heard Mr. M. Amarnath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused No. 1, along with the other accused, induced the de-facto complainant and others to make investments by promising them monthly returns at the rate of 5%. In the course of such transactions, the accused allegedly cheated them of an amount of Rs.6,11,93,000/-.The prosecution case against the petitioner is that Accused No. 1, in his confession statement, referred the name of the petitioner, who is the father/Accused No. 4, and stated that he had transferred amounts from the cheated funds to the petitioner’s account on various occasions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence solely on account of his relationship with accused No.1. Even as per the prosecution material, the primary allegations are against accused No.1 and his other associates. The allegation against the petitioner is limited to his alleged involvement in the business conducted by accused No.1 and the amounts allegedly transferred to the petitioner are stated without any particulars. He further submits that the petitioner had no direct involvement in or access to the financial transactions with the de-facto complainant or the other investors. Apart from the allegation that accused No.1 approached the de-facto complainant and others individually, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. It is also alleged, based on the statement of accused No.1, that certain amounts were transferred to the account of the petitioner/accused No.4; however, the said allegation is without any particulars. There are no other allegations against the petitioner.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the name of the petitioner came to light from the statement of the prime accused, accused No.1, who specifically disclosed that the proceeds of the crime and the cheated amounts were transferred to the petitioner’s account on various occasions. The exact amount transferred, the manner in which the said amounts were utilized, the complete money trail, and the involvement of the petitioner is still under investigation. However, he submits that an amount of about Rs. 6,00,00,000/-. (Rupees Six Crores) has been recovered from accused No.1, out of which an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs has been recovered, and that mere recovery of the amount does not absolve the accused, including the petitioner, of their liabilities. The presence of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of further investigation. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The prosecution case indicates that accused No.1, along with others, induced the de-facto complainant and other accused/investors in the name of monthly returns and profits and collected amounts from them. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that accused No. 1 transferred the proceeds of the crime to the petitioner’s account. Admittedly, the role of the petitioner and the money trail referred to by accused No. 1 are still under investigation. Nonetheless, from the material placed on record, it is clear that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner/accused No. 4 in making any representation to or collecting amounts from the de-facto complainant. Having regard to the factual position and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, as well as the willingness of the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, and in the absence of any specific ground indicating difficulty in securing the petitioner’s presence for the purpose of judicial process or any requirement for indispensable custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s prayer for grant of anticipatory bail merits positive consideration.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, subject to such conditions as may be imposed to secure the petitioner’s presence during the investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution. (A) The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, EOW Team-III, CCS, DD. Hyderabad Police Station, on or before 17.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release him 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 Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of two (02) 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.

11. 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: 02.09.2026 FM

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13938 OF 2026

DATE: 02.09.2026

FM