IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17629 OF 2025

08.01.2026 Between :

Mathapathi Veeresh … Petitioner/ Accused And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Station House Officer, Chilkalguda Police Station, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad … Respondent : ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.7 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.427 of 2025 of Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant who is the Chief Manager of SBI, Padmarao Nagar Branch, Hyderabad lodged a complaint on 20.08.2025 at 18:30 hrs, stating that Smt. Kankipati Niharika, caused a wrongful loss of Rs.20,11,417/-, Krishna Venkatesh caused a wrongful loss of Rs.24,68,110/- and Siddamurthi Jaipal Reddy, caused a wrongful loss of Rs.24,96,406/-. All three had availed personal loans from the bank by submitting fabricated salary account statements, pay slips, and other employment-related documents. During an internal audit, these documents were found to be fake. Subsequent investigations and staff accountability reviews confirmed the fraud. The bank’s Fraud Monitoring Cell declared these accounts as fraudulent, and since no repayments were made, the bank suffered financial losses. Hence, requested the police for necessary action against the said individuals, basing on which case was registered against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Goalla Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and there is no role of the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy and forging of the documents. Petitioner is not involved in any forgery of document even according to the prosecution. He contended that petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigating authority and prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that petitioner herein played a key role in facilitating the applicants, coordinated document delivery, directed on the ground withdrawals of sanctioned funds and ensured onward distribution of commissions among syndicate. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required for further investigation. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material placed on record, the petitioner herein is arrayed as A.7. Though petitioner would submit that other accused are already released on bail, they were arrested and released on regular bail and this is an anticipatory bail. Further there are specific allegations against this petitioner also and the material used for alleged forgery has to be recovered. Therefore at this stage, petitioner is not entitled for bail and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date : 08.01.2026

Rds

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17629 OF 2025 DATE :08.01.2026

Rds