Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3395
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
CHIMAKURTHI NAGA VENKATA SAI KIRAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRLP 2641/2025
UMESH CHANDRA P V G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly, considering the gravity of allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 35(3) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 318(4), 316(5), 61(2) - Anticipatory bail application - Allegations of fraud involving substantial amounts by bank employees - Petitioner claimed to be a victim misled into involvement - Court emphasized necessity of custodial interrogation for investigation - Dismissed the bail application citing gravity of allegations and ongoing investigation. (Paras 1-25)
(B) Bail - Anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances - The court must consider the impact on the investigation process. (Paras 21-23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with a fraud case involving Rs.28.34 Crores, where bank employees allegedly orchestrated fraudulent activities affecting customers. The petitioner claimed to be misled and argued for bail based on lack of prior criminal record and willingness to cooperate.
Findings of Court:
The court found that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover misappropriated funds and ascertain the petitioner’s role in the crime.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner was a victim or an accomplice and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the gravity of the allegations and the need for investigation justified denying anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the power to grant bail should be exercised with caution.
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
ORDER:
1. The Criminal Petition, under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/A20 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.23/2024 of CID Police Station, A.P., Mangalagiri.
2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).
3. The Prosecution’s case, in brief, is that, on 09.10.2024, at 16:30 hrs, the CID Police Station in Mangalagiri received a complaint from Sri Sandeep Mehra, Zonal Head-Retail of ICICI Bank, Vijayawada. The complaint stated that between October 3 and October 5, 2024, multiple ICICI Bank customers reported several fraudulent activities, including: a) Overdraft (OD) facilities taken on their Fixed Deposits (FDs) without their consent, b) Invalid FD receipts issued, c) Cheques against OD limit reductions fraudulently credited to third-party accounts, and d) Missing jewels from gold loans. After conducting internal checks, it was found that ICICI Bank employees, including the Branch Manager, Regional Head-Sales, and Gold Loan Counsellor, had orchestrated a money transfer fraud using various schemes targeting existing and new customeRs.The total fraudulent amount was approximately Rs.28.34 Crores. The accused employees built personal relationships with customers to encourage them to invest in FDs and gold loans. They falsely promised zero interest on gold loans, enrolled customers in fraudulent schemes, and misused their deposits. The gold was transferred to other branches, and the received amounts were redirected to third-party accounts. Fake receipts were sent to customers to create a false sense of security. Additionally, they manipulated FD accounts and loans, using fake receipts and OTPs to access customer funds and divert money for personal gain. When an audit in 2024 identified discrepancies, the fraudulent accounts were transferred to other private banks and financial institutions. Based on the investigation and statements from Accused No.1, the Petitioner was added as Accused No. 20 in the case.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A.20 submits that the Petitioner, arraigned as A.20, is alleged to have deposited Rs.1.5 Crores into his account, which was subsequently withdrawn. However, the Petitioner is neither a banker nor an authorized individual, and an examination of the fraud reveals that he was a mere customer deceived into believing he would benefit, similar to other victims. The Petitioner approached A.1 to open an account for his friend Priya, with the amounts deposited into third-party accounts, which were then transferred to the Petitioner’s account, creating the false impression of his involvement in the conspiracy. The Petitioner was unaware of the fraudulent activity, having been misled by A.1, who had earned his trust. Given that some co-accused, including A.3, have been granted bail, continuing the Petitioner’s judicial custody serves no purpose, especially since the crime was registered in October 2024. Custodial interrogation is no longer necessary. The Petitioner has a permanent residence, is willing to cooperate with the investigation, and has no prior criminal record. Therefore, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted to the Petitioner, as continued detention would violate his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the investigation is still pending.
6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition as well as in the Report. Consequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced.
7. In Mahipal V. Rajesh, [(2020) 2 SCC 118], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is nec
