CRLP/10518/2026 of Konakalla Sai Aruna Vs The State of Telangana, on 16 July 2026

O R D E R:

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.50 in FIR No.39 of 2017 of Bellampalli I Town Police Station, Mancherial District, New with CID Regional office, Karimnagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of Telangana Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act-1999 (for short, “TPDFE Act”). and Sections 4, 5 (a)(c) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act,1978 (for short, “PCMCS Act”).and Section 38(2) of the Telangana State Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act,1995 (for short, “TSMACS Act”).

3. Heard Ms.SAV Ratnam, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Ramesh Babu, 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 lodged a report alleging that AEGIS Pariwar Mutually Aided Co-operative Society (for short, AEGIS) had floated various deposit schemes promising substantial returns to its members. It is alleged that, despite the maturity of the deposits, the Society failed to repay the maturity amounts to the depositors and, on one pretext or another, delayed such repayments. Based on the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

4.2. The allegation against the petitioner is that she was one of the promoters/directors of AEGIS and that the deposit schemes in question were floated and operated at the instance of the promoters and directors of the Society.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has no manner of involvement in the alleged offence. It is contended that the petitioner was neither a promoter nor a director of the said Society. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's name does not find place in the First Information Report and that she was subsequently arrayed as an accused by the Investigating Agency, which fact came to her knowledge only upon perusal of the remand report.

5.2. It is further submitted that, except for vague and omnibus allegations, no specific overt act or role has been attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a private school teacher by profession, has deep roots in society, and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. It is also submitted that she is prepared to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.1. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation has revealed that the petitioner was one of the promoters/directors of the Co-operative Society and was involved in the operation of the deposit schemes, which ultimately resulted in default in repayment to the depositors. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the precise role played by each of the accused persons is yet to be ascertained.

6.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the petitioner has not made herself available for investigation, thereby impeding the progress of the investigation. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the alleged financial offence, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

8. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that she, along with the other accused, promoted and acted as a Director of the AEGIS, which mobilized deposits from the public under various investment schemes and subsequently failed to repay the matured deposits to the investors. The prosecution alleges that, being a promoter/director of the Society, the petitioner was instrumental in operating the deposit schemes. However, except the general allegation that the petitioner was a promoter/director of the Society, no specific overt act, individual role, or distinct allegation has been attributed to her at this stage of the investigation. It is also relevant to note that, according to the prosecution itself, the investigation has remained pending since the year 2017, and despite the considerable lapse of time, the investigation has not yet been brought to its logical conclusion.

9. It is a settled principle of law that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty with the legitimate interest of the investigating agency in conducting a fair and effective investigation. The factors which ordinarily guide the exercise of such discretion include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused absconding or evading the process of law, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary for the purposes of investigation.

10. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail is an important safeguard of personal liberty and that the Court must carefully evaluate the necessity of arrest in the facts of each case. The Court observed that mere seriousness of the allegations is not, by itself, a ground to deny anticipatory bail unless the prosecution establishes circumstances warranting custodial interrogation or demonstrates that the accused is likely to evade justice or obstruct the investigation. Similarly, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that arrest is not to be effected in a routine or mechanical manner merely because the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

11. In the present case, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the absence of any specific allegation indicating an active or distinct role played by the petitioner beyond her alleged status as a promoter/director of the Society, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not, at this stage, demonstrated any compelling necessity for custodial interrogation. The investigation has admittedly remained pending since the year 2017, and no material has been placed before this Court to indicate that the petitioner has attempted to evade the investigation, tamper with the evidence, or influence the witnesses. In these circumstances, and keeping in view the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

(A). The petitioner/Accused No.50 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Bellampalli I Town Police Station, Mancherial District, on or before 31.07.2026. 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 remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (C) 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. (D) 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.

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: 16.07.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10518 OF 2026

DATE : 16.07.2026

mmr