THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4744 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent No.2/accused No.1 in Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2025 in Crime No.416 of 2022 on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner/de facto complainant, Crime No.416 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) against respondent No.2 and others. The accusation made against respondent No.2 is that respondent No.2 colluding with other accused misappropriated the fund of the petitioner and transferred more than Rs.60 to 70 lakhs belonging to the petitioner Companies, namely NSP International, Frumar Agri Foods Private Limited and Tejas Food Industries LLP, to the accounts of the other accused persons. Respondent No.2 was arrested on 13.03.2025 and thereafter he filed Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2025 for grant of regular bail and the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, granted bail on 19.03.2025.

3. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant, Mr. S. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.1 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate without properly considering the gravity of the offence and without assigning reasons granted bail in favour of respondent No.2, especially there are specific allegations are levelled against him that he has committed grave offence and diverted the huge amount of the petitioner Companies to his relatives and friends accounts and he committed cheating and conspiracy and the ingredients of Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS are attracted against him. The punishment for the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS is life or 10 years imprisonment and the punishment for the offence Section 61(2) of the BNS is imprisonment for life. When the punishment for the offences levelled against respondent No.2 is more than seven years, the learned Magistrate ought to have record the reasons while granting bail. The learned Magistrate without giving any reasons granted bail and the same is liable to be cancelled. He further submitted that as per Section 111 of the BNSS, even the sub-clause of Sections 3 and 4 of the said Section provides for punishment not less than five years and which may extend to imprisonment for life. Hence, considering the serious nature of the allegations contained in the complaint, the learned Magistrate ought to have cancel the bail application of respondent No.2. The learned Magistrate even without verifying the complaint, on the other hand, granted bail in favour of respondent No.2. When the investigation is pending, the learned Magistrate without verifying the record held that most of the investigation has been completed and further held that having considered the gravity of the offence instead of dismissed the bail granted bail in favour of respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has committed grave offence and at his instance only, huge amount of the petitioner companies were transferred to various accounts belonging to his relatives, friends and his custodial interrogation is very much required for conducting investigation. The learned Magistrate granted bail in favour of respondent No.2 mechanically even without any reasons and the same are not sustainable under law. In these circumstances, the bail granted in favour of respondent No.2 is liable to be cancelled.

4.1. In support of