CRLP/10742/2026 of Valiveti Devasena, Vs State of Telangana, on 17 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.818 of 2026 of Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. Heard Mr.Ramprasad Pathipaka, learned counsel representing Mr.K.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent- State.

4.1. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the de facto complainant, who is the owner of a residential property, approached accused No.1 for arranging a loan. Accused No.1, in turn, introduced accused No.2 and facilitated the sanction of a loan of Rs.35,00,000. Thereafter, at the request of the accused, the de facto complainant executed a General Power of Attorney dated 16.05.2018 in respect of the said residential property in favour of accused No.3 as security.

4.2. During the years 2020–2021, the de facto complainant came to know that the property tax receipts issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation had been mutated in the name of accused No.1. Upon enquiring with accused No.1, he was informed that the property had been temporarily kept in the name of accused No.5 for the purpose of obtaining a bank loan and that it would be restored to his name upon repayment of the loan. However, after about two years, the de facto complainant allegedly began receiving reminders from the bank for payment of the loan instalments. Thereafter, accused No.1 allegedly stopped responding to his telephone calls.

4.3. Consequently, the de facto complainant obtained an Encumbrance Certificate from the Registration Department, which revealed that the property had been transferred by accused No.3 to accused No.4, who, in turn, executed a sale deed in favour of accused No.5. It was further revealed that accused No.5 had mortgaged the property with SBM Bank and obtained a loan of Rs.1,80,00,000. Alleging that the petitioner and the other accused had acted in collusion to cheat him and dishonestly misappropriate his property, the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property, having purchased the same for valuable sale consideration from accused No.3, who was the General Power of Attorney holder in respect of the property. It is further submitted that there was no dishonest or deceptive intention on the part of the petitioner either towards the bank or the de facto complainant, either at the inception of the transaction or at any subsequent stage. It is contended that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and that, after purchasing the property, he subsequently sold it to accused No.1. Nevertheless, the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, contending that the allegations in the complaint and the material collected during the investigation disclose that the accused, including the petitioner, had acted in collusion in respect of the property belonging to the de facto complainant, which had been alienated on the strength of the

General Power of Attorney obtained as security. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that accused No.5, who stands on a similar footing, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. It was further contended that the investigation is still at a nascent stage, that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required, and that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that accused No.3, acting as the General Power of Attorney holder, executed a registered sale deed in the petitioner’s favour and that the petitioner thereafter conveyed the property to accused No.5. It is further alleged that accused No.5 subsequently mortgaged the property with the bank and availed a loan thereon. It is the consistent stand that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and that the purchase was financed through a bank loan. According to the petitioner, the entire transaction is duly reflected in the bank records and is evidenced by registered documents, thereby demonstrating that the acquisition of the property was a genuine commercial transaction undertaken in the ordinary course of business. It is also contended that there is no material, at this stage, to indicate that the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged fraudulent design or that he shared any common intention with the other accused to defraud either the de facto complainant or the bank.

9. By these submissions, this Court finds that the transactions relied upon by the petitioner are prima facie supported by bank records and duly registered conveyance deeds. Whether the petitioner was merely a bona fide purchaser for value or was, in fact, a participant in the alleged conspiracy is a matter that can only be ascertained upon a thorough investigation and appreciation of the evidence collected during the course of investigation. At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record any conclusive finding on the merits of the allegations.

10. It is also not in dispute that accused No.5, who stands on a similar footing, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Although the principle of parity cannot, by itself, constitute the sole basis for granting similar relief, it nevertheless remains a relevant consideration where the role attributed to the accused, the nature of the allegations, and the surrounding circumstances are substantially similar. The principle of parity is intended to ensure consistency in the exercise of judicial discretion and to avoid discriminatory treatment among similarly situated accused, unless distinguishing features warrant a different approach.

11. Furthermore, the allegations against the petitioner predominantly arise out of documentary transactions evidenced by registered instruments and banking records, which could be available to the investigating agency. In such circumstances, the necessity for custodial interrogation does not, at this stage, appear to be compelling. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an important safeguard of personal liberty and that custodial interrogation should not be directed as a matter of course merely because the investigating agency seeks it. The Court is required to balance the interests of a fair investigation with the fundamental right to personal liberty. The factors relevant for consideration include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence, the requirement of custodial interrogation, and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

12. In the present case, the petitioner has expressed his readiness to cooperate with the investigating agency and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and in the absence of any material placed before this Court to indicate that he is likely to abscond, evade the investigation, or interfere with the collection of evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, however, subject to conditions to secure the petitioner’s presence during the course of investigation and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

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, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, on or before 01.08.2026. 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 Second and Fourth Sunday between 09.00AM to 05.00PM, for a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) Additionally, 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 her 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 she tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

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: 17.07.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10742 OF 2026

DATE : 17.07.2026

CHS