IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.39719 of 2025 THE 27^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 Between:

Sri. Muppadi Venu …Petitioner AND IDBI Bank Ltd. and 2 others …Respondents

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“… to issue writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 3 in not releasing the original documents, which were mortgaged with respondent No.2 bank towards the security of petitioner as guarantor, towards the security against loan accounts of borrowers i.e. 1) Sri. Kamana Naga Shiva Krishna Goud, loan Account No.0441655100000198, 2) Kodati Malleswari, loan Account No.0441655100000222, 3) K. Naga Subramanyam, loan Account No.0441655100000204, 4) K. Venkata Kanaka Durga Rao, loan Account No.0441655100000213, 5) Sri. M. Venkataramana Chowdary, loan Account No.0441655100000268, 6) Sri. M. Venkateswarlu, Account loan No.0441655100000231, 7) Chitikina Edukundala, loan Account No.0441655100000189, 8) Sri. Padala Rama Reddy, loan Account No: 0441655100000259, 9) Sri. Vedulla Gayathri Prasanna Kumar, since entire loan amount was cleared as a guarantor on behalf of borrowers and No Dues Certificates were issued by the 2^nd respondent on 25-06-2025 in respect of all nine loan accounts without reference to the pending investigation or trail of criminal case vide FIR No.RC.06 (A)/2018/CBI/HYD dated 22-03-2025, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 3 to release the original documents, which were mortgaged as security for subject loan accounts petitioner as guarantor, immediately, and ..…”.

2. Heard Ms. P. Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pardha Saradhi Katamaneni, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the entire record.

3. One Aadilakshmi Group represented by Muppidi Lakshman Rao obtained nine (9) Pisciculture loans from respondent No.2 bank under Kissan Credit Card for the purpose of fish farming/cultivation and the petitioner herein stood as guarantor for all the said loans by mortgaging original documents. Due to losses in pisciculture, the borrowers could not repay the same and the loan was categorized as NPA. In that context, the respondent No.2 initiated proceedings before the DRT for recovery of borrowed amounts and also got a criminal case registered vide FIR No.RC.06(A)/2018/CBI/HYD dated 22.03.2025 arraying the said Aadilakshmi Group represented by Muppidi Lakshmana Rao as accused No.3 and said criminal case is pending investigation. Meanwhile, the petitioner participated in the One Time Settlement scheme on 07.03.2025. At the request of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 bank accepted to recover the loan amount from the petitioner under OTS scheme. Pursuant to said agreement, Letter of Approval dated 07.03.2025 was issued. The petitioner who is a guarantor cleared the entire loan amounts on 25.06.2025 and No Due Certificate dated 25.06.2025 was issued by respondent No.2 bank. In spite of payment of the entire loan amounts under OTS scheme, the documents of the petitioner were not released.

4. There is an issue about whether or not the documents can be released in favour of the petitioner when the investigation in the criminal case is still pending. There is also an issue of whether the consent of respondent No.3 is required for respondent No.2 to approach DRT for release of documents.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner cannot seek release of documents as a matter of right since the criminal case wherein fraud is alleged is still pending and said documents are required for investigation.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the