IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Aryan Singh Chabbra S/o. Harpreet Singh - Petitioner/accused
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondents
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6349, 6354, 6357 and 6391 of 2025
Decided on : 30-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's role and allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's defense arguments (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. prosecution's counterarguments (Para 6) |
| 4. role and actions of the petitioner in the company (Para 7) |
| 5. overview of allegations and developments in the case (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. court observations on the prosecution case (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. legal precedents cited regarding anticipatory bail (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. considerations for granting anticipatory bail (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. serious nature of economic offenses (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. final ruling on anticipatory bail application (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 11. final order of dismissal (Para 28) |
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest.
1.1. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime Nos.10 and 12 of 2025, accused No.2 in Crime No.11 of 2025 and accused in Crime No.215 of 2025. The de facto complainants have filed various complaints with similar allegations against the petitioner and other accused before the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Station, Cyberabad, and the said complaints were registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’) and Section 5 of TELANGANA STATE PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS OF FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT , 1999 (for short ‘TSPDFEA’). Hence, all four criminal petitions are heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the facility of reference, the facts in Crl.P.No.6354 of 2025 is being referred to.
Brief facts of the case:
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that the de facto complainants have lodged a written complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad, on 11.02.2025, stating that M/s Capital Protection Force Private Limited (Falcon) is engaged in Invoice discounting and functioning from 4th floor, Office No.405, HUDA Techo Enclave, High Tech City, Hyderabad, since 2015 onwards. Invoice Discounting is a financial service in which, company can raise funds by selling their invoices to third party financial institutions at a discount rate. The company offered the opportunity to deposit in Falcon under the pretext of providing funds for invoice discounting. The deposit was structured with the promise of returns basis on the invoices they discounted, with clear agreements that specified maturity dates for repayment, including interest.
3.1. It is further averred that there are different invoice plans such are 1) 45 days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 11%-12%, 2) 90 days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 16%-18% and 3) 180 days or more days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 20%- 21.95%. The company is having bank account No.111405002867 of ICICI Bank, Gachibowli Branch and Escrow Account No.777705844888 in the same bank. The depositors have to transfer their deposit amount to the said account through online. The deposit range is from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5 Crores.
3.2. It is also stated that the de-facto complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.3.83 Crores by transferring from his account No.007101508028 of ICICI Bank. The other depositors namely 1) Vandana Soni has deposited an amount of Rs.2.36 Crs. by transferring from her account No.3111718567 Kokak Bank, 2) Silpa Pappagari has deposited Rs.64,25,000/-, by transferring from her account No.124710100007143 Union Bank, 3) Daina Nazerath has deposited Rs.1.27 Crores from her account No.346501500043 ICICI Bank, 4) Dr.Sarvana has deposited Rs.2.55 Crores in the name of his mother namely Rajamani Palanippan and transferred from his account No.50100639388449 HDFC, Kethakkam Branch, Chennai. Thus, the total deposit amount comes to Rs.9,38,25,000/-.
3.3. It is also averred that they have received monthly returns till 17.01.2025 and thereafter, no payment is rece
Virupakshappa gouda and another v. State of Karnataka and another
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
Anticipatory bail in economic offences requires a careful analysis of the seriousness of allegations and potential risks to investigations, particularly when significant fraud is involved.
Anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely in serious economic offences involving large-scale fraud, as custodial interrogation is crucial for effective investigation.
Economic offences need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country, requiring a different approach in the matter of bail.
Point of Law : Grant of Bail - Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information an....
The judgment emphasized the seriousness of economic offences, the need for custodial interrogation, and the balance between individual rights and public interest in granting anticipatory bail.
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted if it hampers investigation, especially in cases involving economic offences.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.