CRLP/10451/2026 of Velishela Sravanti alias Telukunta Sravanthi Vs The State of Telangana on 22 July 2026

COMMON 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 petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 1 in Crime No.180 of 2026 on the file of Karkhana police station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 319(2), 318(4) and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”). As the petitioners are accused in the same crime seeking analogues relief, these petitions are considered together and are being disposed of by the following common order.

3. Heard Mr. Puppala Maheedhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that accused No.1, the proprietor of M/s. Thribu INC, obtained an overdraft facility of Rs.50,00,000/- and a loan of Rs.12,00,000/- under the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) by mortgaging the residential property of his mother, allegedly without her knowledge or consent, and by forging her signatures on the loan and guarantee documents. During the bank's internal enquiry, it was allegedly discovered from passport records that the mother of accused No.1 was outside India at the relevant time. It is further alleged that the Relationship Manager interacted only with accused No.1, who arranged the signatures of both guarantors, including the petitioner/accused No.2, without the bank officials personally meeting either of them. After the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), the bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the "SARFAESI Act"), and took possession of the secured asset. It is further alleged that the registered business premises of M/s. Thribu INC were found to be non-functional. The bank claims to have suffered a wrongful loss of Rs.57,52,823/-. On these allegations, it is contended that the petitioners, acting in collusion, fraudulently obtained the loan facilities. Based on the complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and that the dispute arises out of a commercial loan transaction which has been erroneously given a criminal colour. It is contended that the petitioners had a long-standing banking relationship with the complainant bank, and that the credit facilities were sanctioned and periodically renewed only after due verification of the financial records and audited accounts. It is further submitted that there was neither any dishonest nor fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction and, therefore, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, particularly the offence of cheating, are absent. It is argued that the loan account became irregular solely on account of unforeseen business disputes and financial setbacks suffered by the company, and that despite such difficulties, the petitioners deposited approximately Rs.2.23 crores towards the loan account, thereby demonstrating their bona fides and intention to repay the outstanding dues. It is further contended that the complainant bank has already initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and taken possession of the secured asset, indicating that the dispute is substantially civil in nature. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution case is founded entirely on documentary evidence, which is already in the custody of the bank, and that no recovery is required from the petitioners. It is submitted that the disputed signatures, if any, can be examined by forensic experts without the necessity of custodial interrogation. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners are permanent residents, are not likely to abscond, and are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation by complying with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and contended that the material collected during the investigation prima facie discloses the commission of serious cognizable offences involving forgery, cheating, and the fraudulent procurement of bank finance, and that the case is not merely a civil dispute arising out of a loan transaction. It is further submitted that, by forging the signatures of the guarantor and mortgaging the property of accused No.1's mother without her knowledge or consent, the petitioners fraudulently obtained an overdraft facility of Rs.50,00,000/- and an ECLGS loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant bank. It is further submitted that the bank's internal enquiry, supported by passport records, revealed that the guarantor was outside India during the relevant period, and that the statement of the Relationship Manager establishes that accused No.1 alone interacted with the bank and arranged the guarantors. It is contended that, after the loan account was classified as an NPA, the petitioners became unavailable and the registered business premises of M/s. Thribu INC were found to be non-functional, resulting in a wrongful loss of Rs.57,52,823/- to the bank.

6.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the pendency of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act does not bar criminal prosecution, as civil and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields. It is also contended that the investigation is at a crucial stage and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary to ascertain the manner in which the alleged forged documents were created, to identify the persons involved in the alleged conspiracy, and to facilitate completion of the forensic examination of the disputed signatures. Having regard to the gravity of the alleged economic offences, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition seeking anticipatory bail.

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

8. At the outset, the allegations against the petitioners prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences involving the alleged forgery of signatures, fraudulent creation and use of loan documents, and inducement of a financial institution to sanction substantial credit facilities by deception. The First Information Report specifically attributes to petitioner/accused No.1 the role of procuring an overdraft facility and an Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) loan by offering his mother's residential property as collateral security without her knowledge or consent. The prosecution further alleges that the signatures of the owner of the property were forged on the loan and guarantee documents. The internal enquiry conducted by the complainant bank, coupled with the verification of the passport records, allegedly reveals that the owner of the property was outside India during the relevant period when the loan documents were purportedly executed. The statement of the Relationship Manager also prima facie indicates that accused No.1 alone interacted with the bank and arranged the signatures of both guarantors, including petitioner/accused No.2, without the bank officials personally meeting either of them.

9. If these allegations are accepted at their face value, they disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, including offences punishable under Sections 316, 318, 336, 338, 340 and 61(2) of the BNS. At this stage of investigation, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the allegations. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation.

10. It is true that the complainant bank has already invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the outstanding dues. However, the availability or invocation of civil remedies does not eclipse criminal liability where the allegations disclose the commission of offences such as forgery, cheating or the use of forged documents. It is now well settled that civil and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and may proceed simultaneously when the factual matrix gives rise to both civil consequences and criminal culpability.

11. In Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the allegations disclose the ingredients of offences such as forgery and cheating, the mere existence of a civil dispute cannot be a ground to stifle criminal prosecution. Similarly, in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that merely because a transaction gives rise to civil liability, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed if the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of a criminal offence.

12. The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 of the BNSS are equally well settled. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to take into consideration, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the exact role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, the requirement of custodial interrogation, and the larger interests of society. These principles have been authoritatively laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and subsequently reaffirmed in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.

13. The allegations in the present case pertain to an economic offence involving the alleged fraudulent procurement of bank finance through forged documents. Economic offences constitute a distinct class of offences affecting not merely an individual victim but also the integrity of the financial system and public confidence in banking institutions. Recognising the seriousness of such offences, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that applications seeking pre- arrest bail in cases involving economic offences require a more cautious approach. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Supreme Court observed that economic offences stand on a different footing as they involve deep-rooted conspiracies and have serious ramifications on the economy. Likewise, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, it was held that economic offences involving huge public funds constitute grave offences affecting the economy of the country and therefore require a different approach while considering bail.

14. In the case on hand, the investigation is admittedly at a nascent stage. The prosecution has specifically asserted that custodial interrogation of petitioner/accused No.1 is necessary to ascertain the manner in which the disputed loan documents were prepared, the source of the title deeds, the identity of the persons involved in the alleged conspiracy, and to facilitate a comprehensive forensic examination of the disputed signatures. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that such investigation cannot be prematurely curtailed.

15. A careful examination of the allegations, however, reveals a material distinction in the role attributed to the two petitioners. According to the prosecution itself, the entire transaction was conceived, orchestrated and executed primarily by petitioner/accused No.1. The allegations specifically attribute to him the acts of procuring the loan facilities, arranging the execution of the disputed documents, and interacting exclusively with the bank officials. On the other hand, petitioner/accused No.2 is shown only as one of the guarantors to the loan transaction. Except for alleging that accused No.2 stood as a guarantor, the prosecution has not, at this stage, attributed any overt act demonstrating his active participation in the alleged forgery or fraudulent procurement of the loan. There is also no specific allegation that the signatures of petitioner/accused No.2 are forged or that he personally impersonated any person before the bank authorities. Whether petitioner/accused No.2 had prior knowledge of, or participated in, the alleged conspiracy is a matter which remains to be unearthed during the course of investigation. Therefore, while the custodial interrogation of petitioner/accused No.1 appears necessary in view of the specific and substantive allegations attributed to him, the same necessity is not presently demonstrated insofar as petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned.

16. Having regard to the distinct roles attributed to the respective petitioners, the gravity of the accusations, the stage of investigation, and the requirement of effective investigation, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner/accused No.1 has failed to make out a case warranting the grant of anticipatory bail. However, petitioner/accused No.2 has made out a fit case for the exercise of discretionary relief, subject to appropriate conditions safeguarding the interests of the investigation.

17. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Criminal Petition No.10452 of 2026, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused No.1, is dismissed.

18. However, the petition is allowed in respect of petitioner/accused No.2., subject to following conditions:

a) Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Karkhana police station, on or before 05.08.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of their arrest, the Station House Officer shall release her on bail upon her executing 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 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.

c) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when directed for the purpose of investigation and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

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

e) In addition, the petitioner shall abide by the conditions contemplated under section 438(2) of BNSS.

19. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition No.10451 of 2026 is allowed and the Criminal Petition No.10452 of 2026 is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 22.07.2026

MRKR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10451 and 10452 OF 2026

DATE: 22.07.2026

MRKR