Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Warle Asha Thai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9225 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. G. Dinesh Patil
For the Respondents: Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon
Court denied anticipatory bail based on substantial fraud allegations and the petitioners' links to the accused, underscoring the seriousness of charges involving significant financial misappropriation.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail sought by petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 in fraud case against them related to large-scale cheating and misappropriation - Petition denied based on substantial evidence linking them to the alleged crime. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 7)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Considerations for granting bail - Presence of serious allegations of fraud, amounting to ₹44 crores against accused No.1, with funds traced to petitioners, demonstrating justification for denial of bail. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
Allegations involved collection of funds under false pretenses by accused No.1 with petitioners being implicated due to proximity to him, despite lacking direct involvement. Complaints registered due to significant losses to numerous investors.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in granting bail given the gravity of the offenses and the ongoing investigation, emphasizing concerns of flight risk and further misappropriation.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the petitioners could be granted anticipatory bail amid serious allegations of fraud and misappropriation linked to significant amounts from numerous victims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the serious nature of the allegations and evidence presented, particularly regarding the petitioners' connections to the accused No.1, warranted the denial of anticipatory bail.
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the grounds for anticipatory bail and description of the fraud case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observations on facts, circumstances, and evidence presented. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments for and against the grant of anticipatory bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. conclusion and final decision regarding the anticipatory bail request. (Para 8) |
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS S’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.242 of 2024 on the file of the INSP Admin (DD) Police Station, Hyderabad District, for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2), 318 (4) r/w. 61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ) and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act, 1999 (for short ‘TPDFE Act’) and Section 12 of Telangana Chit Fund Act, 1982 (for short ‘TSCFA’).
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that On 04.12.2024, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that she became acquainted with Accused No.1 and his companies M/s Kingpin Research & Wealth Management Pvt. Ltd. and Pradeep Assets Management (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., located at H.No. 8-3-945, Flat No. 308, Pancom Business Centre, Sri Nagar Colony, Khairatabad. In February 2024, during a visit to Pancha Mukha Lakshmi Venkateshwara Devasthanam, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad, Accused No.1 approached her and other devotees, canvassing them to invest in his companies, promising a fixed return of 6% per month. He claimed the funds would be invested in the stock market, trading, and startups, and also ran a chit fund under the name "Divya Jyothi Chit Funds." Based on his representations, the complainant invested a total of Rs.15,50,000. On 06.11.2024, a co-investor, P. Vinay Panthulu, informed her that Pradeep Shiv Kumar Patil had absconded after cheating multiple individuals. His mobile numbers (9951808182 and 9603592540) were found switched off. She later learned that over 250 investors had been defrauded, with a total loss of approximately ₹44 crore. It was further alleged that Patil acquired assets in the names of his mother Usha Bhai, sister Asha Waris, wife Shubangi Patil (in her maternal village Mukhed), and other family members who supported him in the conspiracy. Based on the same, present crime was registered.
3. Heard Mr.G.Dinesh Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have not committed the offence and they were falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that petitioner No.2/accused No.5 is the wife of accused No.1 and petitioner No.1/accused No.4 is the relative of accused No.1. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences and the entire allegations are levelled against accused No.1 only. He further submitted that petitioners are no way concerned with the Company of accused No.1 namely M/s. Kingpin Research & Wealth Management Pvt. Ltd. and Divya Jyothi Chit Funds. He further submitted that petitioners have not received any amount either from the accused No.1 or from the victims, hence, the ingredients under Section 5 of TPDFE are not attracted against the petitioner and the other offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment upto seven years. The investigating officer without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provision of Section 35 (3) of BNSS is proceeding further and the same is not permitted under law. He further submitted that petitioners are not having any other criminal antecedents and they are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court and hence prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Per
