The court denied anticipatory bail, highlighting the serious nature of allegations and ongoing investigations, emphasizing potential interference with evidence and witness tampering.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS S ) by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.7, 5 and 6 respectively, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.416 of 2025 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ).

1.1. Since accused Nos.5 to 7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.416 of 2025, all the three criminal petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.03.2025 at 2015 hours one Mr. Muvva Ramesh, proprietor of NSP International and Managing Director of Frumar Agri Foods Pvt Ltd and Tejas Food Industries LLP, the de facto complainant herein, stated that he have been in the business of manufacturing and exporting grocery products since 2010. They employed the petitioner herein in 2015 as a Junior Executive, who later became an Export Manager. Over time, he, in connivance with transport and freight forwarding companies, misappropriated company funds through fraudulent means, including: 1). Inflating transportation costs Falsely increasing the number of lorries required for shipments. 2). Falsifying ocean freight expenses Exaggerating costs and diverting excess funds to personal accounts. 3). Colluding with transporters and shipping agents Receiving illegal kickbacks from service providers. 4). Hiding communications Excluding the company management from negotiations to conceal fraudulent transactions. Their internal audit found that 60-70 lakhs were transferred to his relatives accounts, and he used the misappropriated funds to purchase 20 acres of land and residential assets in Hyderabad and surrounding villages. Hence, the de facto complainant requested legal action against the petitioners and other accused.

3. Heard Mr. S. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed the offence and they have falsely implicated in the present crime. The entire allegations are levelled against accused No.1 only and the petitioners are not having any connection with the company of respondent No.2. The petitioner/accused No.5 is native of Narsapuram Village working as an auto driver and eking out his livelihood and he has nothing to do with the company of respondent No.2 and there is no specific role attributed against him. The petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 are residing in Hyderabad working as software employees and they are also not having any role in connection with the company of respondent No.2 and there are no specific allegations against them to attract the ingredients of Sections 318 (4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS .

4.1. He further submitted that neither respondent No.2 nor the prosecution has not placed any iota of evidence that accused No.1 transferred the amounts belonging to respondent No.2 Company into the accounts of the petitioners. Respondent No.2 simply relying upon the computer generated bank statement alleged that the amounts belong to his company transferred at the instance of accused No.1 in the accounts of the p