IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4212 OF 2026 DATE : 07.04.2026 Between:

Sunkara Bobby @ Sunil Kumar Bobby & another ….Petitioners/A.2 & A.3 AND The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

….. Respondent : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.1487 of 2025 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.11.2025 at about 17:00 hours, the complainant T. Srikanth, r/o.Vaddepally Enclave, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, lodged a complaint stating that one P. Vijay Kumar approached him claiming that he had influence in the Government and could secure a government job for him. Believing the same, the complainant agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.45,00,000/-. He initially paid Rs.3,00,000/- as advance, thereafter Rs.20,00,000/- to Bobby Sunkara, and Rs.25,00,000/- to P. Vijay Kumar at different intervals. Subsequently, he was sent to Delhi for one month training and then to Mumbai for six months of further training, and was asked to wait for posting orders. However, even after one year, he did not receive any job appointment, and upon enquiry, he realized that P. Vijay Kumar, Bobby Sunkara, and P. Arun Kumar had cheated him on the pretext of providing a government job. Hence, he requested the police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the Police registered the case against the accused for the above offence.

3. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent of the said allegations, that they have been falsely implicated in the present crime, and that the allegations in the complaint and remand report are vague, exaggerated, and do not disclose any specific overt acts against them. It is submitted that, as per the remand report itself, the main allegations of inducement and collection of money are attributed only to A.1, and the petitioners are not shown to have played any direct role. The counsel further submits that the allegations against the petitioners are omnibus in nature, without any specific acts, dates, or transactions, and their implication is based merely on suspicion. It is also contended that A.1 has already been granted regular bail and the role attributed to the present petitioners is much lesser, and therefore, on the ground of parity, they are entitled to anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the entire case is based mainly on documentary evidence already in the possession of the investigating agency, and that the dispute, arising out of alleged financial transactions and promises of employment, is essentially civil in nature. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the offence committed by the petitioners is a serious in nature. Under the guise of getting employment in Government organization, the petitioners along with other accused have cheated the complainant and received huge amounts. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, the allegations against the petitioners disclose a prima facie case of cheating involving substantial amounts under the guise of providing gov