CRLP/12219/2026 of Chilakanti Vimala Devi Vs The State of Telangana on 7 August 2026

ORDER:

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

2. The petitioner is arrayed as the accused No.2 in FIR No.925 of 2026 on the file of KPHB Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(3), 318(4) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.C.V.Srinath, 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 the Manager/Zonal Head of Muthoot Finance Fincorp Limited submitted a police report dated

19.07.2026, alleging that accused No.1, who was working as the Branch Manager, in connivance with the branch staff, systematically diverted customer funds, manipulated loan accounts, and unauthorisedly removed and disposed of pledged gold ornaments. It is further alleged that the accused created bogus loan accounts, fabricated records, and misappropriated the Company's assets for wrongful gain. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that she was working as a Senior Customer Service Executive in the said branch. Basing on the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is contended that, even on a close reading of the complaint, the specific allegations are directed against accused Nos.1 and 9, and there is no reference whatsoever to the petitioner. Learned counsel further points out that the employer, vide letter dated 04.06.2026, terminated the petitioner's services on the ground that she had not been reporting for duty since 06.05.2026. It is further submitted that the transactions referred to in the complaint were allegedly carried out only after 06.05.2026, during which period the petitioner was admittedly not attending the office. According to the learned counsel, notwithstanding the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner and the fact that she was not present in the branch during the relevant period, she is apprehending arrest and coercive action in connection with the present crime. The petitioner is, however, willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the complaint discloses misappropriation committed by the accused in a concerted and well-planned manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was working as a Deputy Manager/Customer Service Executive, which is her admitted position, and that the investigation is presently underway. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for a fair and effective investigation. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the staff members of the KPHB Branch, acting in collusion with one another, systematically manipulated the accounts and, by fabricating certain documents and creating loan accounts, allegedly misappropriated the Company's assets for their personal gain. Such allegations undoubtedly warrant a fair, effective and thorough investigation, particularly with regard to the respective roles attributable to each of the persons implicated in the crime.

9. At the same time, at the stage of consideration of an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the evidence or record a finding on the ultimate merits of the allegations. Any definitive conclusion regarding the petitioner's involvement, culpability or otherwise, based merely on the pleadings of either side, would therefore be premature and may prejudice the investigation or the eventual adjudication of the case.

10. It is well settled that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal liberty and the legitimate requirements of a fair and effective investigation. The relevant considerations, inter alia, include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, the antecedents of the accused, and the necessity, if any, of custodial interrogation.

11. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against arrest being made mechanically or as a matter of course merely because the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The necessity of arrest has to be assessed in accordance with the statutory requirements and the facts of the particular case. The mere existence of an accusation, therefore, does not by itself render custodial arrest indispensable. The principle assumes particular significance while considering whether the apprehension of arrest expressed by an accused justifies the grant of pre-arrest protection.

12. In the instant case, this Court has considered the nature of the allegations, the specific circumstances projected by the petitioner, and the stage and requirements of the investigation. It is not disputed, at this stage, that the petitioner had not been attending the office since 06.05.2026, whereas the transactions referred to in the complaint are alleged to have taken place thereafter. The said circumstance, coupled with the absence of any specific material presently brought to the notice of this Court demonstrating the petitioner's active participation in the alleged transactions, indicating the necessity of her custodial arrest.

13. The petitioner has also expressed her willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by such conditions as may be imposed by this Court. There is no material presently placed before this Court indicating that the petitioner is likely to abscond, evade the process of law, influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, KPHB Police Station, Cyberabad, on or before 22.08.2026. 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 remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (C) 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. (D) 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. (E) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (F) 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.

15. 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: 07.08.2026 Mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12219 OF 2026

DATE : 07.08.2026

mmr