IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1774 OF 2026 DATE : 16.03.2026 Between :

Gantela Naveen … Petitioner/A.4 And The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad, … Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.4 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.54 of 2025 of Karepalli Police Station, Khammam District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 418(4) r/w.3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act, 1999.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.03.2025 at about 19:50 hours, the complainant, lodged a complaint stating that he is working as a railway employee. The accused, namely A.1 Nandru Suresh of Karepalli, A.2- Dondeti Sridevi of Thittelapadu, Thirumalayapalem, A.3 Nazeer Pasha along with A.4 Naveen of Mustafa Nagar, Khammam, deceived him by promising high returns on investment in a company called “Nemeta.” They induced him to invest by assuring that if he paid Rs.1,00,000/-, he would receive Rs.5,00,000/- in return. Believing their words, the complainant invested a total of Rs.25,00,000/-, out of which Rs.16,00,000/- was transferred through PhonePe and Rs.9,00,000/- was paid in cash. However, they failed to pay the promised profits and when questioned them about the same, the accused gave evasive replies and attempted to avoid him. Therefore, he realized that he was cheated by the accused. Hence, this FIR.

3. Heard Sri J.P.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only an employee of the financial company whose duty was limited to explaining the schemes to customers as per company instructions, for which he received salary. He never retained any part of the investments collected, which were forwarded to the company. It is further contended that though a case was registered against him in Crime No.90/2025 of P.S Khanapuram Haveli, he surrendered before the District & Sessions Court, Khammam, underwent judicial and police custody for 119 days, and was later granted bail. Despite this, P.S Karepalle did not file any P.T. Warrant during his custody but is now attempting to arrest him, which clear shows harassment against the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner had no independent role in the company’s decisions and he is falsely implicated. Hence prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the petitioner along with other accused looted huge amount from various victims in the name of investment scheme. The petitioner has a key role in this offence. Further investigation is not yet completed. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions of both parties and the material on record, it is noted that the petitioner, who is arrayed as A.4 in the present crime, is also involved in three other crimes. In one of those cases, he was arrested on 22.05.2025 and later released on bail. However, after his release, he failed to comply with the bail conditions by not appearing before the investigating officer. Though the prosecution filed a P.T. warrant in the present crime, it was dismissed as no proceedings were pending before the Sessions Judge, Khammam. In view of the petitioner’s conduct in not cooperating with the investigation in another crime, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to him at this stage, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous pe