Anticipatory bail is denied when serious allegations of fraud and misappropriation exist, especially during an ongoing investigation.

ORDER :

(J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.5 in Crime No.13 of 2025 of EOW Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 , 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 14.02.2025 at 11.30 hours, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he registered Kosher Pharmaceutical Private Limited and which was commenced into operations in 2017. When he was the Managing Director of the said company, accused No.1 belongs to his village was appointed as accountant in the said company to look after the company accounts. Later, in 2022 due to some disputes/unavoidable situations, the said Kosher Pharmaceutical Private Limited was acquired by MSN Group in 2022 under SARFAESI Act. Later, in the year 2022, he registered LTR Life Sciences Private Limited. As accused No.1 earlier worked in his company and belongs to his native village, having in faith, he appointed accused No.1 and one P. Narsimha Reddy as Directors of the Company, but they have not invested any money nor have not any shares in the Company. As part of Company transactions, the de facto complainant has opened an account in Indian Bank with Joint cheque Power to the both directors. Accused No.1 used to sit in the corporate office situated at Panjagutta, Hyderabad, to look after bank account transactions, releasing purchase orders (POs) and P. Narsimha Reddy used to stay in plant situated at Jagadevpur Village and Mandal Siddipet. Accused No.1 frequently visited the plant at Jagadevpur village and taking it as an advantage, with malafide intention, he took the signatures of P. Narsimha Reddy on blank cheques. After taking signatures on the blank cheques, accused No.1 diverted funds to his personal accounts, his wife’s accounts and cash transactions were made to his brother-in-law and to his known business people accounts.

2.1. It is stated that Elite Pharmaceutical Private Company owned by him is merged with LTR Life Sciences Private Limited, where accused No.1 and P. Narsimha Reddy, de facto complainant’s wife L. Pallavi and accused No.2 (Elite Directors) have became four Directors for the LTR Life Sciences Private Limited, and opened bank accounts in Bank of Baroda, Himayathnagar branch and other account in HDFC Chandanagar branch and the cheque power has been given to Smt. L. Pallavi. After that, he and his family members have transferred these two accounts for the civil work and equipments works till commencement of company in operations. Due to personal problems, accused No.2 resigned from her directorship. Hence, only above said three persons are directors to the Company. During this course of action, his wife, namely Smt. Pallavi, everyday used to send signed blank cheques to corporate office to accused No.1 for daily requirement and equipment purchase in the best interest of Company establishment. Taking it an advantage, accused No.1 used to keep few signed cheques aside, cleverly whenever he got an opportunity he started diverting the funds to his personal bank account, his wife’s account, his friend i.e., accused No.3’s bank account and Creative Minds Company belongs to accused No.3, accused No.3’s wife saving accounts, Shiva Parvathi company's accounts belongs to accused No.4 and other companies familiars. In the same manner, the Proprietor Company LTR Infra cheques were also misused by accused No.1 as Modus operandi. Due to great faith in accused No.1 and also he belongs from his village, he did not have suspicious on him and used to believe him blindly. On 15.12.2023, Rs.35 Lakhs has to be received by our company from MSN Pharma Company, but accused No.1 has given his Axis Bank account number and transferred the said amount to his personal bank account without the de facto complainant’s knowle