Palle Prakash Babji Alias P. Babji vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Accused No. 2, sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The de-facto complainant alleged that one Notalamarthi Nageswara Sharma, posing as an SBI Manager, induced her to invest approximately Rs. 6,42,78,000/- between May 2022 and December 2024 for auction properties and gold ornaments. The complainant paid the amount through various means, including cash, UPI, and online transfers, which constituted her family's lifelong savings. Sharma allegedly presented forged letters from government departments, including the GST Department, to make the transactions appear genuine. Despite assurances, no property was registered in the complainant's name. The police registered a case based on her complaint. The petitioner claims no direct allegations against him, arguing that the investigation is complete and allegations are against other accused.

Held

The Court dismissed the criminal petition for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the allegations against the petitioner (Accused No. 2) involve conspiracy and cheating with innocent victims, and that Accused No. 2 played a vital role in the alleged cheating. The Court found that there were serious allegations against the petitioner and that the investigation was not yet completed. Therefore, at this stage, the Court was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail. The reasoning was based on the serious nature of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, which indicated the petitioner's potential involvement in the fraudulent scheme. The ratio decidendi is that anticipatory bail will not be granted when serious allegations of conspiracy and cheating exist against the petitioner and the investigation is still in progress.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Accused No. 2, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of conspiracy and cheating. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that there are no specific allegations against him, and the primary allegations are against Accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 8. He argued that the material part of the investigation has been completed and therefore, he should be granted pre-arrest bail. Revenue's Argument: The State (Respondent No. 1) argued that Accused No. 2, by conspiring with Accused No. 1 and others, posed as an Assistant Director of SBI, Estates & Finance, SBI Koti, Hyderabad. He allegedly assured victims of allotting auctioned properties and induced them to pay amounts to Accused No. 1. The State further submitted that Accused No. 2, along with others, forged government department letters to deceive victims, extorting approximately Rs. 20 Crores. They also argued that Accused No. 2 insisted on prompt payments and failed to submit relevant documents when notices were served. The State asserted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and granting pre-arrest bail at this stage is not appropriate.