IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2397 OF 2026 DATE : 13.03.2026 Between :

Mr. Pradip Kumar V Rathod … Petitioner/A.4 And The Directorate of Enforcement, Rep., by it’s E.D. Hyderabad Zonal Office, 3^rd floor, Shakat Bhavan, Hyderabad … Respondent : 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 summons issued by the respondent vide Summon No.PMLA/SUMMON/HYZO/1813.

2. Heard Sri Md. Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Narender Naik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has no involvement in any alleged offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PML Act). He is a qualified engineer engaged purely on a contractual basis to provide technical support and maintenance of computer systems at a call centre. His role is confined to maintenance and troubleshooting of IT infrastructure, and he had no part in management, financial transactions, accounting, or operational decisions of the entity. He further contended that petitioner was not a signatory to any bank account and had no role in financial dealings or irregularities. Till date, no formal complaint under Section 44 read with Section 45 of the PML Act has been filed against him before the competent Special Court, and mere issuance of summons for investigation does not justify custodial interrogation or arrest. In connection with the same offence, an FIR was registered under Section 420 IPC vide FIR No.902 of 2023 at P.S. Madhapur, where he was arrayed as Accused No.4, arrested, and later released on bail. The CBI also registered a case vide RC2312026S0007 dated 29.01.2026 based on the same cause of action, but the petitioner was not named in that FIR. The petitioner contends that mandatory provisions of the PML Act have not been strictly complied with, and procedural safeguards have been ignored, thereby vitiating any coercive action contemplated against him. Learned counsel further contended that there is no likelihood of absconding, and all relevant documents and electronic devices are already in possession of the Investigating Agency. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied on the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc. V State of Punjab, 1980 AIR 1632. He further contended that petitioner is suffering from serious medical ailments and is HIV positive, requiring continuous medical supervision and specialized treatment, and custodial detention would endanger his health. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand learned Standing counsel opposed bail stating that petitioner has played crucial role and cannot be termed as an employee of Technical Manager. In fact on seeing police the petitioner along with other accused tried to abscond

from the scene of offence and immediately he was caught hold by the police. As such, it cannot be said that he is innocent of the said allegations. Furthermore, the petitioner has not appeared before the investigating authority pursuant to the summons issued to him for recording the statement on 18.02.2026 which itself shows the conduct of petitioner. Further, merely on the ground that petitioner is a HIV positive patient, he is not entitled for bail. If petitioner is arrested the jail authorities would take care of the same and it is pre-mature for filing anticipatory bail at this stage. The authorities are now investigating the matter and recording the statements. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

5. In support of his submissions the learned Standing Counsel, placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 SC