CRLRC/607/2025 of Molla Jashwanth Vs The State of Telangana on 21 January 2026

13257 | IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION GASE NO: 607 OF 2025 Revision Case uMer Sections 438, 442 of BNSS against the order dated 02-12-2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3608 of 2O24 in Cr.No.3O of 2024 sn the file of the Court of the Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. Between: Molla Jashwanth, S/o Molla. Shivaiah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o. Flat No.402, Aryan Residency, Kokapet, Narsingi, Ranga Reddy District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.6 AND The State of Telangana, Rep., by The Fublic Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. ...Respondent Gounsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Viplav Simha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Publh Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE J c o Molla Jashwanth. 21ST JANUARY,2026 AND Petitibner The State of Telanqana xep. throul3h publii prosecutor. This :riminal revision case is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.p.No 3608 of 2024 in CC No.3387 of ,O2S (Crime No.30 ot 2024) on the fite of tearned Xll Additional C:hief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad "ra ,; ;,;" directions to defreeze the Bank Accounts bearing A/c.No.15121r)100110225 of Union Bank, Nizampet grancn anl A/c.No.3014Szt'291 ot Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kokapet ,;;"; ;;; pass such other orders as the Court deems fit and proper. ... Respondent Heard Mr.Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.M.Rarnachandra Reddy, learned

Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Additional public

Is, t Crl.R.C.No.6O7 of202S

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the accused persons offered training classes on building a career in real estate and collected money with false promises and defrauded innocent investors. The modus operandi involved is luring unemployed youth into training classes, convincing them to invest in lands with promises of a rninimum 200% appreciation in one year. Accordingly, de facto complainant invested Rs.35,00,000/- and deposited the amount into the company account of Jyoshika lnvestor Club pvt. Ltd., and additional Rs.13,00,000/- in cash, in total Rs.48,00,000/- was paid to the accused persons. Later the de facto complainant came to know that around 25 members were lured by false promises by the accused persons. Further, it was found that Jyoshika lnvestor Club Pvt. Ltd., office in Hyderabad reportedly closed down operations. When the de facto complainant tried to contact the accused No.4, who is the father of the petitioner herein, he avoided him. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged upon the accused Nos.1 to 6 in Cr.No.30 of 2024 on the file of CCS, DD Hyderabad EOW Team-V, Hyderabad registered for the offences under sections 406,420 read with 34 of lndian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for defreezing his account. He submits that the petitioner was a private .'. \ .\.

,s, t Crl.R.C.No.607 of2O25 employ{?e in software and he was having his own earnings, which the Court failed to consider and passed order mechanically, without any valid identifiable reasons and without issuing any notice or opportunity of hearing. The entire charge sheet do not specify any evidence to show that the accused No.1 transferred the victims amounts in favour of the bank maintained by accused No.6, and purely crtnsidering the objections of the prosecution, holding that since inv'estigation is pending, the defreezing cannbt be granted. Further vuithout following mandatory procedure i.e. section 102(3) Cr.P.C., the freezing of account ought to be treated as irrational and when the property is seized (Applies to property suspected of being stolen or linked to any offence, including freezing bank accounts) the same must be reported forthwith to the Magistrate, which is never the case here. He further submits that there is no allegation of direct involvement of this petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences as per the charge sheet. The only ground on which accused herein was arrayed is his position as a director of the company.

5. lt is lurther submitted that the Kotak Mahindra Bank Account was opened in the year 2020 as salary account while the petitioner was workinl; for Capgemini, which is a personal account operated in his name and available balance is Rs.16,00,000/_. Further the

,s,l Crl.R.C.No.607 of2025 source of income was the Top up Loan on Car purchased in February, 2024 of Rs.25,00,000/- and in the same month Bank Account was seized after the credit of the loan amount. Union Bank's account was opened in the year 2016, while the petitioner was pursuing his graduation. Personal savings account opened in his name and the available balance is Rs.2.5 lakhs, source of income was that the petitioner availed personal loan of Rs.7.5 lakhs from Tata Capital in the month of November, 2023 and the amount was credited into his Kotak Bank. The same amount was transferred into the Union Bank account during the month of February, 2024 and in the same month the Bank account was freezed.

6. He further submits that he purchased Thar vehicle and a flat by availing top up loan and personal loan and by selling his flat on 09.11.2022. The petitioner's father is accused No.4 and his account was defreezed by the trial Court. But the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that investigation is pending and charge sheet was not filed. He further submits that as of now investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed.

ls, , Crl.R-C.No.6O7 of2025

7. Fle placed reliance upon a decision held by the Hon'ble Apex Court ir leesfa Atul Setalvad y. Stafe of Gujaratl ,wherein in para 26 it was held as - 2ti. Although both sides have adveied to statement of accounts and vouahers to burfress their respective submrbslons, we do not deem it necessar! nor think it appropiate to anatyse the same white conilidering the matter on hand which emanates from an application pref,zned by the appellants to defreeze the stated bank.accounts pending investigation of the case. lndisputabty, the investigation is still .tn progress. The appellants will have to explain their position to the investigating agency and after investigation is complete, the maftzr can proceed fufther depending on the material gathered during the investigation. The suspicion enteftained by the investigating agency as to how the appellants appropriated huge funds, which in fact ntere meant to be disbursed to the unfonunate victims of 2002 iots will have to be explained by the appe ants. Further, once the inve:;tigation is complete and potice report is submitted to the Coutt concerned, it would be open to the appettants to apply for defreezing of the bank accounts and persuade the Court concerned that the said bank accounts.are no more necessary for th,e purpose of investigation, as provided in sub-section (i) of Srrcfion 102 of the Code. lt wi be open to the Court conc.trned to consider that request in accordance with taw after hearing the investigating agency, including to impose conditions as may be waffanted in the fact situation of the case. Hence prays to allow the criminal petition

8. Learned Additional public prosecutor submits that the petitioner s having personal accounts in Union Bank of lndia, Nizampet irnd Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kokapet and the amounts were transferred from companies/firms, family members account into his accounts and re-diverted internaily and purchased Frat No.503, Echo Tower, sth floor, situated in plot Nos. 31 & 33, Survey I (2018) 2 Suprerre Court Cases 372 -"'

IS, I Crl.R.C.No.607 of ZO2S No.160, Narsingi Viilage, Gandipet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District and registered in his name and he also purchased rhar Vehicle bearing No.TS-09/FT-0393 with the amounts of victims. Hence, prays to dismiss the revision.

9. Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner availed a personal loan of Rs.7,50 ,lool-from Tata capital Financial Services Limited and a top-up roan of Rs.25,30, 1g4t- from tsajaj Finserv. lt is arso evident that, vide sare Deed No.6463, dated 09.11 .2022, the petitioner's flat was sotd to third parties. tn view of the aforesaid loan transactions and the sare deed and as the porice completed investigation and filed charge sheet, this court opines that the account of the petitioner can be defreezed. However, since - there hre allegations with regard to diversion of amounts pertaining to the companies run by the accused persons and misappropriation r account of the petitioner/accused No.6 subject to the result of the c.c.No.33g7 of 2025 on the file of xlt Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. \

,s,, Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2025 {0. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of. lvliscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

To, sEcTtoN oFFICER

1. The )(ll Additionar chief Judiciar Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The [itation Hgus_e officer, potice Siation, iCS, i""rli, nyo"i"Urd.

3. Two rlcs to the pubric prosecutor, High court rol. tn" si.i;;f i;h.gana at

4. One CC to Mr. Mplav Simha Reddy, Advocate tOpUCI

5. Two ()D Copies **'j* I ti i h

I ,i j

D HIGH COURT ATED:2110112026 ORDERi CRLRC.No.607 of 2025 D]SPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ;) (-) R h l.l €' 2t]26

n * * t , \b a il