CRLP/10608/2026 of Bandi Sandhya Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana on 21 July 2026

: ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.3 in FIR No.384 of 2026 of Madhura Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) r/w.Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

(for short ‘BNS’) and subsequently the sections were altered to Sections 111(b)(2), 316(2), 318(2), 340(2), 336(3), 338, 340, 351(2) and 61(2) r/w.3(5) of BNS.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 03.06.2026, the de facto complainant, K. Srilatha, lodged a complaint alleging that A.1- Balakrishna, induced her and her husband to invest in a gold trading scheme by promising high returns and advised them to pledge their gold ornaments with Kosamattam Gold Finance, KPHB Branch. It is alleged that the petitioner/Accused No.3, who was the Branch Manager, supported A.1 by assuring the complainant that the investment was safe. Believing their representations, the complainant and her husband pledged gold ornaments weighing about 306.600 grams (approximately 30.6 tulas) on different occasions, and the loan amounts were transferred to the accounts of A.1 and one Nikhil. Subsequently, when the complainant visited the branch on 26.05.2026, she was informed that the pledged gold had already been released and that no gold was standing in her or her husband's name. Alleging that A.1, Nikhil, and the petitioner acted in collusion and misappropriated the pledged gold, she lodged the complaint. Based on the said complaint, the present crime was initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections

316(2), 318(4), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, and subsequently, as per the remand report dated 04.07.2026, the offences were altered to Sections 111(b)(2), 316(2), 318(2), 340(2), 36(3), 338, 340, 351(2) and 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

3. Heard Sri D.Sudharshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated solely because she was working as the Branch Manager of Kosamattam Gold Finance and that the principal allegations of inducing the complainant, receiving the loan amounts, and conducting the alleged gold trading transactions are only against A.1, and one Nikhil. It is submitted that the petitioner was discharging her official duties in processing the gold loan after the complainant and her husband voluntarily completed the required KYC formalities and executed the necessary loan documents. There is no allegation that the petitioner personally received any money, gold, commission, or any wrongful gain, nor did she have any private transaction with the complainant or A.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on

04.07.2026 despite earlier obtaining an order from this Court in W.P. No.20405 of 2026 directing the police to conduct the investigation strictly in accordance with law. The learned counsel contends that the respondent police mechanically altered the penal provisions only to justify her arrest and remand, thereby circumventing the safeguards under Section 35 of BNS. It is also submitted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and that the alleged undertaking was obtained under coercion. Since the case is based entirely on documentary and electronic evidence, including loan documents, KYC records, pledge forms, bank transactions, CCTV footage, and company records, all of which are already in the custody of the finance company and the investigating authority can get those documents from the Finance company, as such, her further custodial detention is unnecessary. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is a 30- year-old woman with no criminal antecedents and regular employment, and shall abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending that the petitioner along with other accused actively involved in the alleged offence and cheated the defacto complainant by misappropriating the pledged gold of 306.600 grams. As such, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made and perusal of the material available on record, the petitioner herein is the Branch Manager of Kodamattam Finance Ltd., KPHB Branch, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and the allegation against her is that she along with other accused mis-appropriated the amount and cheated the defacto complainant. However, the petitoner herein is arrayed as A.3 and she is in jail from 04.07.2026 and the investigation is based on documentary evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute 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 XIV- Additional Judicial Magistrate’s Court at Nampally, Hyderabad.

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date : 21.07.2026 Rds

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10555 OF 2026

DATE : 21.07.2026

Rds