Kashamolla Santhosh Rao vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Kashamotla Santhosh, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. He is arrayed as Accused No. 2 in Crime No. 278 of 2022, registered at KMM IT Police Station, Khammam District. The petitioner claims innocence, stating he is an agriculturist and was implicated only because he is the brother-in-law of Accused No. 1. He also asserts that no money was transferred to his account. The prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, contends that the petitioner, along with other accused, cheated the de facto complainant and misappropriated a huge sum of money. The investigation is ongoing. The de facto complainant alleged that Accused No. 1 and the petitioner, acting as loan consultants, along with Accused No. 3 as a business partner, induced the complainant to pay various sums for CIBIL clearance, IT issues, and documentation, totaling over Rs. 50,800, Rs. 2,78,279, Rs. 67,735, and Rs. 2,00,000 plus GST, but no loan was sanctioned. The complainant later discovered the emails were manipulated and he was cheated, and was subsequently threatened by Accused No. 1 and the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail at this stage. The reasoning is based on the gravity of the allegations made against the petitioner and the other accused, as revealed in the complaint. The Court noted that the case is still under investigation. The Court considered the submission that a similar application for anticipatory bail by Accused No. 1 was dismissed. Therefore, the Court concluded that the request of the petitioner for anticipatory bail could not be honored. The operative direction was to dismiss the criminal petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 278 of 2022, considering the allegations of cheating and misappropriation. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he is innocent, an agriculturist, and has no involvement in the alleged financial transactions, as no amount was transferred to his account. He argues that his implication is solely due to his relationship with Accused No. 1. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argues that the petitioner, along with other accused, cheated the de facto complainant and misappropriated a significant sum of money. The case is currently under investigation. The State also highlights that a similar anticipatory bail application filed by Accused No. 1 (Criminal Petition No. 2960 of 2023) was dismissed by this Court.