CRLP/10651/2026 of Palthya Bharat Kumar Vs The State of Telangana on 21 July 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 accused No.4 in FIR No.27 of 2026 of Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection Of Depositors Of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, “TGPDFE Act”).

3. Heard Mr.Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused, who were associated with Subhakshetra Projects Private Limited, floated a scheme for the sale of plots on an instalment basis by representing that a 16-acre DTCP-approved layout, named "Subhakshetra", would be developed. It was represented that, upon payment of an initial amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the balance in regular instalments, a plot would be allotted to the purchaser. Acting on these representations, the de facto complainant and several other subscribers deposited a total sum of Rs.6,58,50,000/- through banking channels into the account of Gokula Nanda Infrastructure Private Limited. Alleging that the accused failed to fulfil the promises made under the scheme, the de facto complainant lodged the present complaint, pursuant to which the crime came to be registered.

4.2. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Gokula Nanda Infrastructure Private Limited, into whose account the amounts paid by the subscribers of the "Subhakshetra" venture were deposited. It is further the case of the prosecution that Subhakshetra Projects Private Limited and Gokula Nanda Infrastructure Private Limited acted in concert and pursuant to a criminal conspiracy to induce members of the public to invest in the scheme and thereby collect money from them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence. It is contended that the petitioner has no connection with Subhakshetra Projects

Private Limited or with the "Subhakshetra" venture floated by the said company. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the amounts were credited to the account of Gokula Nanda Infrastructure Private Limited, of which he is the CEO, and that his implication is primarily based on his relationship with accused Nos.1 and

5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation, has a permanent place of residence, is not likely to abscond, and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the complaint and the investigation conducted thus far disclose that the amounts collected in the name of the "Subhakshetra" venture were routed through the account of Gokula Nanda Infrastructure Private Limited, of which the petitioner is the Chief Executive Officer. It is further submitted that the account statements of the company reveal that certain amounts were withdrawn by the petitioner. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the investigation is still in progress and that the petitioner's custodial interrogation may be necessary for an effective and comprehensive investigation. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

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

8. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that the petitioner, in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of Gokula Nanda Infrastructure Private Limited, and the said company received amounts collected from members of the public under the "Subhakshetra" venture floated by Subhakshetra Projects Private Limited. According to the prosecution, the funds mobilised from the investors were routed through the bank accounts of Gokula Nanda Infrastructure Private Limited, and the corresponding banking transactions form the basis of the allegation that the petitioner was actively associated with the alleged financial dealings. It is further alleged that the petitioner, along with the other accused, acted in concert and pursuant to a common design in inducing the public to invest in the scheme and collecting deposits thereunder. Whether the petitioner had the requisite knowledge or intention, the extent of his participation in the alleged transactions, and whether the ingredients of the alleged offences are ultimately established are all matters requiring a thorough investigation and adjudication on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation and, if necessary, tested at trial.

9. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail are well settled. The jurisdiction under Section 438 of the BNSS is intended to safeguard the personal liberty of an individual against arbitrary or unnecessary arrest, while at the same time ensuring that a fair and effective investigation is not impeded. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the competing interests of the individual and the investigating agency by examining, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the antecedents of the accused, the likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the process of law, the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and whether custodial interrogation is genuinely indispensable for an effective investigation.

10. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is a vital safeguard of personal liberty and that arrest should not be resorted to merely because it is lawful to do so. The Court emphasized that the necessity for custodial interrogation must be assessed on the facts of each case and that deprivation of liberty should be justified by compelling reasons. Likewise, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that arrest is not to be made as a matter of course. The investigating agency must demonstrate that arrest is necessary for one or more of the purposes contemplated under the law.

11. In the present case, according to the prosecution itself, the principal material relied upon to implicate the petitioner consists of banking records and other documentary evidence collected from the concerned financial institutions. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that the amounts collected from the investors under a scheme floated by another company were credited to the account of Gokula Nanda Infrastructure

Private Limited, of which he is the Chief Executive Officer, and that certain withdrawals were made from the said account. Thus, the petitioner's alleged involvement is, at this stage, founded substantially upon documentary and financial records, the authenticity and evidentiary value of which are capable of being independently verified during the course of investigation and ultimately appreciated during trial.

12. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the documentary character of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, and the willingness expressed by the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Further, the object of the investigation can be adequately secured by imposing appropriate conditions regulating the petitioner's participation in the investigation.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Economic Offences Wing Police Station, Cyberabad, on or before 04.08.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner 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 09.00AM to 05.00PM, for a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (D) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (F) Any willful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioners liable to appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Court, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable laws.

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: 21.07.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10651 OF 2026

DATE : 21.07.2026

mmr