Namburi Sreedhar vs. State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Namburi Srecdhar (Accused No. 5), sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 65 of 2025, registered at the Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad. The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner, along with others including his wife and son, induced him to invest approximately Rs. 41.915 crores in a textile and garment business named "Sri Sai Ram Enterprises." The complainant claimed that the accused presented forged purchase orders and fake GST and TDS receipts to secure the investments. When the complainant sought repayment, he alleged he was threatened. The petitioner contended he was falsely implicated and had no role in the transactions, with no material connecting him to the offense other than a co-accused's confession. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations, multiple victims, and ongoing investigation.

Held

The Court held that the investigation in the case was pending. Consequently, at this stage, the Court was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that given the ongoing investigation and the nature of the allegations, it was not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. However, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, the Court directed the petitioner to file a regular bail petition before the concerned trial court. The trial court was then directed to consider the regular bail petition and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Criminal Petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Namburi Srecdhar (Accused No. 5), is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of cheating and financial fraud under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, had no involvement in the alleged transactions, and that there was no evidence connecting him to the offense except for a co-accused's confession. He sought pre-arrest bail based on these grounds. Revenue/State's Argument: The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, asserting that the allegations against the petitioner were serious, there were numerous victims, and the investigation was still ongoing. They argued that granting pre-arrest bail at this stage was not appropriate.