CRLP/10720/2026 of MOHAMMED GHOUSE PASHA Vs The State Of Telangana on 20 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.1 in FIR No.103 of 2026 of Alair Police Station, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2), read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), Section 5 of The Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, “TGPDFE Act”) and Sections 3, 4 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short, “PCMCS Act”).

3. Heard Mr.S.Suresh, 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 petitioner, along with the other accused, entered into a criminal conspiracy and induced innocent members of the public to invest in a crypto currency scheme operated under the name Unitimeta Crypto (CHECK)(UBIT/UVC/UVCX Project) by making false and deceptive representations. It is alleged that the accused promised prospective investors that an investment of Rs.3,20,000/- would yield returns of Rs.9,60,000/- within a short span of time. Believing such representations, the de facto complainant and several other investors allegedly invested substantial amounts in the scheme. According to the prosecution, the accused collectively collected nearly Rs.1.20 crores from numerous investors and, thereafter, dishonestly misappropriated the amounts without honouring the promised returns, thereby cheating the investors. On the basis of the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered for the offences alleged.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly unfounded and unsupported by any credible material. It is contended that the petitioner is, in fact, one of the victims of the alleged scheme, having himself invested money in the project with the bona fide expectation of earning returns. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with the management or operation of the alleged crypto project and was neither its administrator, promoter, nor organizer. It is further argued that the petitioner himself had lodged the complaint against the company and the persons involved therein. That apart, in the present complaint no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner so as to indicate his involvement in the alleged criminal conspiracy or the commission of the offences alleged.

5.2. Learned counsel would further contend that, even according to the allegations contained in the complaint, the amounts paid by the investors constitute investments made voluntarily in a crypto currency venture and cannot, prima facie, be characterised as "deposits" within the meaning of the provisions of the TGPDFE Act, thereby raising a substantial legal issue regarding the applicability of the said enactment.

5.3. It is also submitted that the petitioner has throughout cooperated with the investigating agency and undertakes to continue extending full cooperation with the investigation and by faithfully complying with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the material collected during the course of investigation discloses specific allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, along with the other accused, acted in concert pursuant to a criminal conspiracy by inducing members of the public to subscribe to the UBIT Crypto (Unitimeta/UVC/UVCX)(CHECK) scheme through false assurances of exorbitant returns and facilitated the collection of funds from unsuspecting investors.

6.2. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that the allegations against the petitioner are primarily to the effect that he actively referred prospective investors and persuaded them to join the scheme. It is also fairly submitted that the petitioner was neither the organizer nor the person in control of the UBIT Crypto Project, nor was he the person who ultimately managed or retained the funds collected from the investors.

6.3. Nevertheless, it is contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may still be necessary for an effective and comprehensive investigation, particularly to ascertain the roles played by the various accused, the flow of funds, and the extent of the petitioner's involvement. It is further argued that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the investigation and impede effective collection of evidence. On the above grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks 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 he introduced the de facto complainant and certain other persons to the UBIT Crypto Project and persuaded them to invest money therein. Significantly, the petitioner's specific plea that he himself had lodged a report before the police after entertaining suspicion regarding the misappropriation of funds by the organizers of the UBIT scheme has not been disputed or controverted by the prosecution. This circumstance, though not conclusive, is a relevant factor at this stage while considering the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail.

9. Further, even according to the prosecution, the petitioner's role is confined to that of a member of the marketing network or referral chain. The prosecution itself does not allege that the petitioner was the architect, promoter, controller or beneficiary of the alleged crypto project, nor is there any material presently placed before this Court to indicate that he exercised dominion or control over the funds allegedly collected from the investors. The distinction between a person who merely introduced investors and the principal perpetrators who conceived, operated and controlled the alleged fraudulent scheme is a relevant consideration while adjudicating an application under Section 438 of the BNSS.

10. The object of granting anticipatory bail is to safeguard the personal liberty of an individual while simultaneously ensuring that a fair and effective investigation is not impeded. Personal liberty guaranteed cannot be curtailed except in accordance with a fair, just and reasonable procedure. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench held that the protection granted under anticipatory bail is the balance between the individual's right to liberty and the interest of a fair investigation.

11. In the present case, the petitioner has unequivocally expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The prosecution has not demonstrated any compelling or exceptional circumstances necessitating custodial interrogation of the petitioner at this stage. The investigation can effectively proceed by securing the petitioner's cooperation through appropriate conditions ensuring his availability during the course of investigation and adequately safeguarding the interests of the prosecution.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (A). The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Alair Police Station, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, on or before 03.08.2026. 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 09.00AM to 05.00PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) The petitioner shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (D) 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. (E) 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.

13. 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: 20.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10720 OF 2026

DATE : 20.07.2026

CHS