Anticipatory bail may be granted to co-accused persons when specific allegations of misappropriation are absent, whereas it may be denied to the primary accused in cases of severe financial fraud where custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery.

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 & A.8 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.1819 of 2025 Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 316(4), 318(4) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). Initially the crime was registered in Madhapur Police Station and thereafter it was transferred and re-numbered as Crime No.89 of 2025 of EOW (Cyberabad) Police Station, Cyberabad District and later Sections 338 and 340(2) of BNS were also added to the present sections.

2. The brief facts of the case are that A.1 was an employee of Soft Standard Solutions LLP since 11.10.2021 and she used the company accounts for her personal expenses and made fraudulent transactions to a tune of Rs.2.85 Crores and same was transferred to her family members. Fraud was discovered on 04.09.2025 during the routine audit of the financial records. Hence, the Administration Manager of the said company lodged a complaint before police on 25.09.2025 seeking necessary action against the accused basing on which the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and Sri R.Shekhar Goud, learned counsel appearing for the implead respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that A.1 is an employee of Petabytz Technologies Private Limited and joined the Company on 09.10.2021 as a Senior Accounts Executive and she has nothing to do with the Soft Standard Solutions and both the companies are two different entities and there is no basis to implicate her in the present case. He further submitted that whatever transfers made by A.1 is on instructions of the Directors of the Company and to save themselves A.1 was made as a scapegoat and all her family members were implicated in this case. He further submitted that the entire investigation is based on the documentary evidence as such, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defacto complainant vehemently opposed bail stating that not only Rs.2.85 Crores but more than Rs.6 Crores was misused by A.1 and transferred to her relatives accounts causing loss to the company and without her interrogation, the amount cannot be recovered. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also opposed bail stating that allegations against the petitioners are severe in nature and huge amount of Rs.5.72 Crores is involved in this case and the same has to be recovered and there is a strong likelihood of absconding of the petitioners, if bail is granted. As such, petitioners are not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record while arguing the matter the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted that the Company Directors threatened the father of A.1 and extracted an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs along with her gold ornaments. A.1 also lodged a complaint before police against the Directors and other employees of Company, whereas the defacto complainant admitted that he gave Rs.30 Lakhs, and it is not extortion. Petitioners gave an undertaking on 05.09.2025 that they will pay Rs.70 Lakhs which itself shows