THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10198 OF 2025

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/A.4 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.168 of 2023 of EOW Team-IX, CCS, D.D. Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act, 1999.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.05.2023 at 18.15 hours, a complaint was received from Sri Shaik Omer Muqhtar, S/o Shaik Khajamiyya, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, along with others alleging that he and two others were introduced to one Y. Pratap Reddy through a person named Mohammed Shareef, who persuaded them to invest in a company named V.V. Enterprises, with a promise of monthly returns ranging from 8% to 12% on the invested capital. Based on this assurance, the complainant and others invested a total sum of Rs.3,71,80,000/- in the said company. The company, managed by Y. Pratap Reddy, his associates, and family members initially paid returns for a few months and thereafter stopped making payments and started behaving strangely. When the complainant and others demanded for refund of their invested amount, the accused refused claiming the firm's bank account was insolvent. Furthermore, cheques issued by the accused were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Hence, the complainant requested that appropriate legal action be initiated against the accused persons who allegedly cheated them under the guise of investment. Basing on the said complaint, police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Seshagiri Rao Yalamanchili, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is arrayed as A.4 and he is falsely implicated in this case. There are no specific allegations against this petitioner and he is no way connected with V.V.Enterprises. The petitioner was earlier implicated in Cr.No.184 of 2022 based on the similar allegations pertaining to the same MOU and transaction. Petitioner was granted regular bail in the said crime after considering the facts. Hence registration of second FIR amounts to abuse of process of law and violation of principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.T.Antony Vs State of Kerala¹, wherein, it is held that a second FIR based on the same cause of action is impermissible. He further contended that once the petitioner has already faced investigation and granted bail for the same factual background, he cannot be subjected to arrest again. Further, the MOU dated 10.07.2021 clearly stipulates a repayment schedule without interest indicating the existence of a civil understanding. Despite this, certain investors have maliciously chosen to invoke criminal machinery to pressurize the accused and the petitioner is no way connected with V.V.Enterprises. As such, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that V.V.Enterprises has deposited the amount in the account of this petitioner. As such, it requires custodial interrogation and further huge amount is involved in this case. If bail is granted, he may tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. As such, petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail and prayed this Court to dismiss this bail petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material placed on record, the cause of action in Cr.No.184 of 2022 and the present crime are different. The

(2001) 6 SCC 181

multiple victims reported separate incidents of using similar methods, but occurring at different times and locations as such, T.T.An