Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17600
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Smt. B. Swathi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7597 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram
For the Respondents: learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Failure to comply with bail conditions can result in the denial of further anticipatory bail applications.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 506, 120
(B) and 149 - Transit anticipatory bail - Applicant sought transit anticipatory bail citing her alleged false implication in a criminal conspiracy involving cheating and forgery related to medical supply contracts. Anticipatory bail had been previously granted but not complied with. The Court noted such non-compliance justified denial of the relief sought. (Paras 1, 4, and 10)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Conditions - Non-compliance with bail conditions results in loss of entitlement to further bail applications. (Paras 3 and 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is involved in a case where she is accused of conspiracy to cheat a dentist in a business transaction regarding medical supplies. After initially obtaining anticipatory bail, the petitioner failed to comply with conditions set by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court held that since the petitioner failed to comply with bail conditions, her request for transit anticipatory bail was denied.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to transit anticipatory bail after failing to comply with previously imposed conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that failure to adhere to prior bail conditions can bar further applications for bail, reinforcing the need for legal compliance by the accused.
Result: Criminal Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for transit anticipatory bail under specific circumstances. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented for and against the anticipatory bail request. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court observations on compliance and previous orders. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. arguments regarding health issues and bail conditions. (Para 7) |
| 5. decision not to grant bail based on existing conditions. (Para 10) |
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking transit anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.83 of 2023 dated 17.03.2023 on the file of the Bommanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Section s 406 , 420, 468, 471, 506, 120(B) and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’).
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.03.2023, the informant, a Dentist at JIMS Medical INC Polyclinic, lodged a report stating that her father is the proprietor of the clinic, engaged in distribution of medical equipment. In May 2020, one Ms. Jyothsna visited the clinic and offered to supply Nitrile Hand Gloves at competitive rates, claiming business contacts in the medical supply field. Jyothsna introduced the informant to Ms. Athiya Inam (Delhi), who further introduced Ms. Umera Ali (Mumbai). On 30.01.2021, the informant met Umera Ali at her Mumbai office, where Umera introduced Mr. Ameer Sheikh and Mr. Sadiq of FB Industries as glove suppliers. Ameer Sheikh suggested verifying quality and quantity before purchase. A sale-purchase agreement was signed, and the informant transferred Rs. 9 lakhs as advance to FB Industries via RTGS.The informant hired QIMA Company for inspection, paying 642.72 USD on 04.02.2021, but the accused failed to provide a warehouse address, leading to inspection cancellation. Later, Jyothsna and Athiya introduced Yahiya Ansari and Sunil Rohila, who introduced Bijupoul, claiming he was the proprietor of Creative HR International Standards Company. On 07.02.2021, the informant met Bijupoul, Ansari, and Sunil at Kohinoor Continental Hotel, Mumbai, and signed another agreement. Bijupoul issued a cheque for Rs.2 Crores as security and asked for Rs.1 Crore as advance, which was paid on 09.02.2021 via RTGS. However, Bijupoul failed to deliver the goods. Upon inquiry, he refunded Rs.75 lakhs and withheld Rs.25 lakhs, demanding the return of the Rs.2 Crore cheque. When questioned further, he refused to return the remaining amount and issued life threats. The informant alleges that the accused persons conspired to cheat her, committed criminal breach of trust, forgery, and used forged documents as genuine, along with issuing life threats when confronted. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the above said offences.
3. Heard Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in the present crime, though she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the said crime. The petitioner along with other accused had approached the learned LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and filed the Crl.Misc.No.5456 of 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.83 of 2023 and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
a) The petitioners are ordered to be release on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.83 of 2023 of the respondent-Bommanahalli Police Station Bengaluru on executing their self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with two sureties for like sum;
b) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this said order and to assist him in investigation as and when required;
c) The petitioners shall appe
