(Prayer: Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to Grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioners/ Accused No to 3 to 6 in the event of arrest in respect of FIR No 241 of 2025 dated 21.09.2025 on the file of Tenali Rural Police Station dated 21.09.2025 for the alleged offence under section 318(2), 318(4),336 (2), 338,340 (2), 61 (2) R/w 3(5) of Bharatiya NyayaSmahitha-2023 and pass such)

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Cr.No.241 of 2025 on the file of Tenali Rural Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318 (2), 318 (4), 336 (2), 338, 340 (2), 61(2) r/w. 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, it is a case of cheating and misappropriation of company funds towards personal use by forging the signatures on the bank cheques which are alleged to have been taken place at M/s. Mahadeva Dall Industries Pvt Ltd. It is further stated in the report that the accused No.1 while working as Area Sales Manager, Hyderabad Region on behalf of the company for Hyderabad Region, he placed huge orders more than the actual orders placed by the customers and believing that the orders were genuine, the company transported total products to the Hyderabad Region. But accused No.1 has delivered the products to the customers, as per the actual orders and sold out the remaining stock to some others, thereby cheated the company for his personal gain. It is also alleged that accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2, who is his family member formed traders by getting individual GSTs and obtained products from the company, thereby cheating the company worth of Rs.3,18,63,970/-. Basing on the report, a case has been lodged against the petitioners who are accused Nos.3 to 6.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no ingredients to attract any offences against the petitioners. The petitioners are simple traders, who have purchased the stock from accused No.1. Accused No.2 is the wife of accused No.1. The petitioners have nothing to do with the offence. The names of the petitioners were not shown in the FIR. The petitioners have been maintaining their own respective businesses as registered GST holders maintaining accounts. The investigating agency can examine their accounts at any point of time and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation. The entire allegations are made against accused No.1, there is no connecting link between the petitioners to the alleged fraud. The learned counsel finally would submit that the petitioners are ready to furnish the sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and prayed to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that accused No.1, cheated and committed criminal breach of trust and caused loss to the company to a tune of Rs.3.5 crores. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the allegations made against the petitioners are that accused No.1 only created their companies for wrongful gains. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the investigation is not completed and Court may pass appropriate orders.

6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no specific attributions made against the petitioners touching the offence of cheating, misappropriation, breach of trust, fraud or forgery. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are traders with valid GST and are running the business for the last several years. They have purchased stock by paying amount bonofidely without knowing the alleged fraud. The complaint would show no single averment is made against the petitioners. During the course of investigation also, the remand report of accused No.1 would show that the petitioners are relatives of accused No.1. Except the said statement, there is no incriminating material found against the petitioners in the remand report.

7. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, since it is prima facie relation between the petitioners and the accused No.1 by virtue of commercial transactions, this Court is inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:

                  i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within a period of one (1) week from today and shall their furnish personal bonds for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

                  ii. On release, the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, once in a week i.e., on every Saturday, between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM, till filing of charge sheet.

                  iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation.

                  iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6, shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

                  v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Court concerned. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Court concerned.

9. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

10. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and they shall not be construed as opinion on the merits of the Crime.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.