The court determined that the allegations against the petitioner lacked sufficient evidence to justify denial of anticipatory bail.

The present Criminal Petition is filed for grant Of antiCiPatOry bail tO the petitioner/A4 in Crime No.22 of 2025 on the file of Narsaraopet I Town Police station, palnadu District, registered for the OffenCeS Punishable under sections 316 (2), 318(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of BN`S, 76 Chit Fund Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief iS that the defaCtO COmPlainant has subscribed to chit(s) in the chit fund company run by Al and A2. lt is stated that in which petitioner and her family members who are arrayed as A3 to A5 are sleeping partners. ln the said regard, they have collected huge amounts from the c/e facto complainant and the funds thus collected were misappropriated and the accused have failed to pay the prize money to the defacto complainat.

3. The allegation against the petitioner iS that Since She iS also Part Of the in the said chitfund company/firm fJas a s/eel,'ng pawherJJ she had cheated the complainant and collected the huge amounts around 2.80 crores from them.

4. Accordingly, crime has been registered against the Petitioner along With other accused, and she is arrayed as A4 for the offences Punishable under sect'lon 316(2), 318(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of BNS ,r/w Sec. 76 of Chit Fund Act. 5. Learned counsel Sri V.V.Satish appearing for the Petitioner WOuld submit that the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged chit fund business. chit fund business which was run by her father and mother who are the directors in the said chit fund company and the petitioner is not stated to be a director of the said company.._.. i_n* support of his contention he relies on a document viz., [[Compan,-es ,-nformaf,-or," downloaded from the web site of Registrar of Companies and contends that even as per the said certification the petitioner is not a director of the Company and she has been falsely implicated being kit of the Directors of the Company. lt is further stated that A5 who is husband of the petitioner was released on bail v,-de order in Crl.P.No.

1956 of 2025 dated 01.4.2025.

6. Having regard to the contentions advanced, Prima facie, it appears that nothing has been made out from the Complaint if this petitioner was responsible for conducting the affairs of the Company a{ the relevant point of time] and it is not even the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is one of the directors of the Company. The allegation that the petitioner is a sleeping partner of the Company cannot be substantiated as the subject Chit Fund company, from the record, appears to be a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, and is not a partnership firm to allege that the petitioner is sleeping partner. It is stated that the petitioner is a mother of a toddler. lt is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner would flee away from the jurisdiction, if anticipatory bail, is granted. ln view of the above this court deems it appropriate to dispose of present petition without going into the merits of the issue, with the following directions:

7. The Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to surrender before the Station House Officer concerned within two (02) weeks from today and on such surrender, the petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh `+i-__

only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials and also on cond]-lion that the peti{joner sha" make herself avaIIable for jnvestiga{ion as and when required and that sha" not cause any threat, I'nduCement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.

Needless to observe that the observations herein above are made only for the Purpose Of deciding the above applI-CatiOn.

A:SsS gJ;-SeTBA+ sN|TIT_TJ,J OS EP H GISTRAR SEC T,oN/ CgrfFfcER //TRUE COPY//

For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ts` To, 1