Sri P. Subba Raju vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, accused no. 3, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 65 of 2025 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad. The de facto complainant alleged being induced to invest Rs. 41.915 crores in "Sri Sai Ram Enterprises" by the accused, who presented fake purchase orders and forged GST and TDS receipts. The complainant claimed the accused threatened him when he sought repayment. The petitioner argued he was a victim, had no direct business dealings with the complainant, and was merely an introducer, not a partner or director. The prosecution contended the petitioner played a key role in inducing investment, facilitating transactions, preparing fake documents, diverting funds, intimidating the complainant, and was evading arrest, necessitating custodial interrogation.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that while the complainant stated that the investment was made at the instance of the petitioner, the complaint also detailed that the complainant conducted his own inquiries by visiting the premises of "Sri Sai Ram Enterprises" and meeting other accused. The Court observed that the petitioner was not a partner or director of the company (A.1). Therefore, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required. The Court granted bail subject to the petitioner surrendering before the SHO, EOW Police Station, Cyberabad, within two weeks, executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, appearing before the SHO every Wednesday for eight weeks, and cooperating with the investigation. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of his involvement in a fraudulent investment scheme, specifically concerning the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340 r/w.61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended he was not involved in the fraudulent activities, was himself a victim, had no direct financial benefit, and his role was limited to introducing the complainant to other accused. He claimed to possess documents evidencing his investor status and no connection to the fraudulent schemes. Revenue/State's arguments: The prosecution argued that the petitioner played a crucial role in inducing the complainant to invest, facilitated fraudulent transactions, was involved in preparing fake documents, diverting funds, and intimidating the complainant. They further submitted that the petitioner was absconding and evading arrest, indicating a flight risk, and that custodial interrogation was essential to trace funds, identify victims, and uncover the conspiracy.