THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11764 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.334 of 2025 of Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 314, 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and

61(1) read with 49 of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint on 26.05.2025 before the Circle Inspector of Police, Jagtial Town, stating that there are financial irregularities in the monthly accounts of the office of Superintendent, DHQ, Jagtial. It was found that DA arrears of certain staff members had not been credited to their respective GPF accounts. Upon enquiry with Union Bank of India officials and verification of cheques, vouchers, and challans, it was revealed that the petitioner, who is Record Assistant-cum-Bank Messenger at DHQ, Jagtial, had tampered with and manipulated financial instruments issued by the Superintendent. The petitioner allegedly misappropriated government funds amounting to Rs.4,94,07,162/- in collusion with bank officials. He admitted his involvement and repaid Rs.2,52,07,902/-. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered against him for the abovementioned offences.

3. Heard Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated in the case and that there was a delay in lodging the report and although the concerned authorities had come to know about the matter in the year 2024 itself, no action had been taken by the de-facto complainant and that the petitioner had been threatened to confess, and as such, the authorities had forcibly recorded the statement. He further submitted that the petitioner had no involvement, and without taking action against the other employees who were allegedly involved, the petitioner had been made a scapegoat and that the subject cheques had been issued by the Superintendent by mentioning account numbers of inoperative accounts, and the question of the petitioner receiving credited amounts into his regular accounts did not arise, which clearly indicated collusion between the Superintendent and the bank officials and the petitioner had no connection with any of the allegations. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that there were serious allegations against the petitioner, which had been admitted by the petitioner himself through a letter and that admission was sufficient to establish his involvement in the case and to identify him as the person responsible for the misappropriation of Rs.4,94,07,162/-. He further submitted that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was essential for further progress. In view of the gravity of the allegations, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that there are grave allegations against the petitioner regarding the misappropriation of a substantial amount and that the petitioner has already repaid a major portion of the misused funds, amounting to Rs.2,52,07,902/-, thereby admitting his guilt. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is innocent or falsely implicated. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined