SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38839

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
HAKIM PEER AKBER @ RAHUL – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP 13543/2025



THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13543 OF 2025

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.6 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.72 of 2025 of CCS Police Station, DD, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) r/w.61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by the complainant on 18.06.2025 stating that he was one of the directors of M/s. Trilliance Builders Pvt. Ltd., located at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. The complaint was against one Selva Kumar and Sunil Kumar (Directors), Shankar-personal Assistant to Sunil Kumar, Mrs. Radhika, and Sudhakar- marketing executives of Smart Investment Solutions, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. On 05.12.2023, Sunil Kumar was introduced at the Hyderabad office by Srinivasa Rao from Vijayawada, along with Mrs. Radhika and her husband Sudhakar Vishwa. They claimed that Sudhakar was involved in finance and had connections with companies offering private business loans. They strongly recommended Smart Investment Solutions as a reliable source for such loans. Based on their assurances, D.V. Ramesh and co-director S. Ranga Rao, along with Srinivasa Rao, traveled to Coimbatore and met Selva Kumar and Sunil Kumar, who offered a loan of Rs. 100 Crores against collateral for a period of 10 years. It is further alleged that Srinivasa Rao falsely claimed to be a retired High Court Judge and collected Rs.12 Lakhs from the complainants for travel and other expenses. Despite initial doubts, Mrs. Radhika assured them of her past success in securing large loans and explained that 4% of the loan amount had to be paid upfront for registration. Although the complainants requested only Rs.10 Crores, she insisted that loans below Rs.100 Crores will not be entertained and she agreed to help them in getting approval for Rs.10 Crores and demanded a bribe of Rs.30 Lakhs in cash in three installments and the same was paid on three different dates.

3. It is further alleged that additionally, Rs.1 Crore was transferred from the company’s account through cheque No.000016 dated 11.12.2023, HDFC Bank, SR Nagar Branch to Mr. Selva Kumar’s HDFC account in Coimbatore. Mrs. Radhika then promised immediate registration and disbursement, but after repeated delays, the complainants were called to Chennai and shown a Demand Draft of Rs. 96 Crores allegedly issued by SBI, Coimbatore. Mr. Ramesh photographed the DD and verified it through his contacts at SBI branches in Hyderabad, Nellore, and Anantapur, who confirmed it as fake. Later, at Katpadi, they met Shankar, who directed them to meet Selva Kumar and Sunil Kumar at Chennai. Their associate Mr. Rahul took the DD to SBI, Mount Road Branch, where the bank confirmed it as forged one. After confrontation, the accused invited the complainants to Coimbatore, promising to resolve the issue via RTGS transfer. However, after waiting for a week, the complainants found the office vacated and the accused untraceable. Mrs. Radhika and her husband had also vacated their residence and disappeared. Further inquiry revealed that Selva Kumar and Sunil Kumar, along with their team, had defrauded multiple individuals of approximately Rs.25 Crores using fake DDs, forged documents, and by collecting blank stamp papers, ledger papers, promissory notes, and signed cheques, none of which were returned. Therefore, the complainant requested that a criminal case be registered against the accused and appropriate action be taken to recover Rs.1.42 Crores fraudulently obtained from them. Basing on the said complaint case was registered against the accused.

4. Heard Sri N.Venkataiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that allegations made a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top