Padarabinda Balabantaray , Padra Binda Ray vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court dismissed the Criminal Petition, thereby rejecting the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court found that there were specific allegations against the petitioner, along with other accused, detailing their involvement in transferring loan amounts to customers with a short repayment period (7-15 days). The Court noted that the accused allegedly deducted 22% from the loan amount, including GST, and resorted to abusive language, threats, and sending messages to relatives and friends of customers who failed to repay within the stipulated time. Based on the nature of these allegations and the petitioner's involvement, the Court was not inclined to grant bail. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to surrender before the concerned Court within fifteen days and file an application for regular bail, which would be considered in accordance with law after giving prior notice to the Public Prosecutor.

Facts

The petitioner, Accused No. 4, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 452 of 2020 registered at Jangaon Police Station. The alleged offences include those under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Telangana Money Lenders Act, and the Information Technology Act. The petitioner claimed to be an employee in the Human Resources Department of Shinebay Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and asserted that he was neither named in the FIR nor implicated in any manner in the alleged offences. The prosecution, represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail, citing specific allegations against the petitioner and other accused.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint satisfy the ingredients of the offences with which the petitioner is charged, particularly concerning the petitioner's role and involvement (Section 438 Cr.P.C., Sections 384, 420, 504, 506, 501(b) IPC, Sections 3 & 13 Telangana Money Lenders Act, Sections 66C & 66D IT Act)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that a plain reading of the complaint does not establish any of the alleged offences against him. He emphasized that he is merely an employee and is neither named in the FIR nor described as having any involvement in the alleged criminal activities. He argued that he is unrelated to the allegations. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail. The prosecution presented specific allegations from the FIR and Remand Case Diary, detailing the modus operandi of the accused, including the petitioner, in transferring loan amounts, deducting illegal charges (including GST), and resorting to abusive language and threats when repayment was delayed.