CRLP/9866/2026 of Raghapuram Sandhya Rani Vs The State of Telangana on 7 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 sole accused in FIR No.82 of 2026 on the file of Mominpet Police Station, Vikarabad District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 316(2), 308(7) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), Section 66D of Information Technology Act.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mahmood, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant came into acquaintance with the petitioner on 18.01.2026. Pursuant to such acquaintance and through continuous communication, the petitioner allegedly gained the confidence and trust of the de facto complainant. It is alleged that, by projecting various personal difficulties, including medical emergencies and financial distress, the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to transfer amounts on different occasions into various bank accounts suggested by her. Believing such representations to be genuine, the de facto complainant transferred an aggregate amount of Rs.18,24,500/-.

4.2. It is further alleged that on 20.04.2026, when the petitioner represented that she had been shifted from Apollo Hospital to NIMS Hospital for further medical treatment, the de facto complainant made enquiries and discovered that no patient in the name of the petitioner had been admitted in the said hospital. The de facto complainant, therefore, suspected that the petitioner had made false representations from the inception to deceive him and obtain money. It is further alleged that thereafter, instead of returning the amount, the petitioner demanded further amounts on different pretexts and subjected the de facto complainant to mental harassment and intimidation by threatening to implicate him in false cases. On the basis of the said report, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is contended that the de facto complainant had introduced himself as a bank manager and, taking advantage of the acquaintance, involved the petitioner in certain financial transactions by assuring monetary benefit. According to the petitioner, the de facto complainant himself transferred amounts into the accounts of different persons and instructed the petitioner to collect such amounts and hand over the same, promising commission for each transaction. It is submitted that the petitioner merely acted as an intermediary and had no dishonest or fraudulent intention either at the inception or during the course of the transactions.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the de facto complainant developed physical intimacy with the petitioner on the assurance of marriage and, when the petitioner insisted upon fulfilment of such promise, the de facto complainant threatened to falsely implicate her, resulting in the present complaint. It is further contended that the allegations primarily arise out of financial transactions which are supported by documentary and electronic records, including bank transactions, and therefore custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. It is submitted that the petitioner has a permanent place of residence, undertakes to cooperate with the investigation, and is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner seeks the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the allegations disclose a systematic course of deception. It is submitted that within a short span, i.e., between 19.01.2026 and 27.03.2026, the de facto complainant transferred a total amount of Rs.18,24,500/- through 34 transactions pursuant to the representations allegedly made by the petitioner. It is further submitted that after receiving the said amounts, the petitioner continued to demand additional money and, upon the inability of the de facto complainant to comply with such demands, threatened him with false criminal allegations. He further submits that the manner in which the offence was allegedly committed requires a detailed investigation to ascertain whether similar acts were committed with other persons also and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary. It is contended that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the investigation and, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record.

8. It is well settled that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the necessity of effective investigation with the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The power to grant anticipatory bail is intended to protect an individual from unnecessary arrest where custodial interrogation is not shown to be indispensable. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench held that protection under anticipatory bail provisions must be guided by the facts of the case and appropriate conditions may be imposed to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

9. In the instant case, having regard to the nature of accusations, the fact that the alleged financial transactions are traceable through documentary and electronic evidence, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, and her willingness to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary at this stage. Further, there is no material placed before this Court indicating that the petitioner is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.

10. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, this Court is inclined to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions ensuring her availability for investigation and safeguarding the interest of the prosecution.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioner/Accused shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Mominpet Police Station on 22.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release him on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. (B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for the investigation and shall extend full cooperation for the purpose of investigation; (C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (D) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (E) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (F) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

12. 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: 07.07.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9866 OF 2026

DATE : 07.07.2026

mmr