1. Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(the BNSS) by the Petitioner Nos.1 to 8/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with a case in FIR No.20 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(the IPC) and Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999(the A.P Depositors Act).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners have got fixed abode.

4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Accused No.5 is the daughter of Accused Nos.3 and 4 and she is aged about 25 years. Accused No.7 is not at all connected with the affairs of the society and its institutions; he is only the son of Accused No.6, who is aged about 75 years, though Accused No.6 is a member of the institution. A notice under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ was issued to Accused No.3 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, on 16.12.2024, and the said procedure was never questioned by the 2nd respondent. Accused Nos.8 and 9 are only members of the society. The crime pertains to the year 2024, and no charge sheet has been filed to date. The petitioners have been complying with the conditions of the notice for a long time.

5. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the de-facto complainant is also a member of society and an executive member of the governing body. Section 409 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is not applicable. Except Section 5 of ‘the A.P Depositors Act.,’ the remaining offences are punishable with imprisonment below seven years. At the request of the brother of the de-facto complainant, he contributed only Rs.1,00,000/-, whereas another de-facto complainant contributed only Rs.10,00,000/-.

6. There are altogether four crimes, three registered in the State of Telangana and one in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The disputed amount is Rs.5 crores. The provisions of Section 23 of the Societies Act, 20014 are squarely applicable. Therefore, if any dispute exists between the members of the society, they have to approach the competent District Judge for appropriate redressal through civil law remedies. Section 20(A) of Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 19825 says that on and from the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh EducationAct, 1987 no individual shall establish a private institution: Provided that this section shall not have any effect on any private institution established by an individual and recognised by the competent authority prior to such commencement.

7. There are also certain provisions under the Trust Act which provide appropriate relief. Section 5 of ‘the A.P. Depositors Act.,’ is not applicable to the case on hand. No purpose would be served by custodial interrogation, as everything is borne out from the record. In the present crime, it is undenied that when some of the petitioners were first arrested and produced, the Special Court declined to remand and directed issuance of notice Section 41- A of ‘the Cr.P.C’. Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ notices were issued and petitioners have complied with and cooperated. Subsequently, A4 was remanded on execution of PT warrant in the present crime, after being arrested in an unrelated case under the provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act, 18816,’ case, prompting apprehension of arrest of the remaining family members despite prior compliance of notice issued under Section 41-A of ‘the 4the Societies Act 5the AP Education Act 6 the NI Act Cr.P.C.,’ for compliance. No petition was filed seeking police custody when Accused No.4 was in judicial custody pursuant to the execution of a PT warrant. Petitioners continue to cooperate. Parallel attachment proceedings were initiated in Telangana vide G.O.Rt. Nos. 349 (10-04-2024) & 428 (31-05- 2024) and A.P. G.O.Ms. Nos. 38 (04-03-2025) & 119 (29-07-2025) attaching the very school lands/buildings, buses and certain personal properties, demonstrating that assets are already secured. Nature of investigation is document-centric; properties stand attached under Telangana and A.P. G.Os.; the paper trail is with authorities. Protracted civil litigation, society-membership of complainant's side, and overlapping prosecutions/attachments point to pressure tactics to seize institutional control. Educational society is not a "financial establishment" under Section 2(c) of ‘the A.P. Depositors Act.,’ alleged inflows lack the statutory character of "deposit" under Section 2(b) and the A.P. Depositors Act.,’ is inapplicable. Entrustment in fiduciary capacity is not made out against the petitioners, so Section 409 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is not applicable. Dishonest inducement from inception is unsubstantiated, hence Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is not relevant. By the time the second case was registered, the charge sheet in the earlier case had already been filed. As held in T.T. Antony supra, two investigations in respect of the same series of transactions are not maintainable. Hence, the complaints lodged by the de- facto complainants have to be treated as statements recorded under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. At best, non-repayment of loans is a civil dispute.

8. It is further submitted that there is no flight risk. The petitioners have been cooperating with the investigation and complying with the interim anticipatory bail conditions imposed by this Court for the past 3 months. The petitioners herein filed Crl.P.No.8399 of 2025 seeking to quash the present FIR. One of the grounds raised is that it is a second FIR which is not maintainable as per law laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala ((2001) 6 SCC 181) . Because for the same set of allegations and cause of action, there is an FIR registered at Hyderabad, Charge Sheet was filed and all the properties were attached. On this ground, this Court granted interim direction on 20-08-2025 directing the Investigating Officer not to proceed further in this Crime.

9. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel, relied on a newspaper report and submits that when the Rajamahendravaram CID Police registered a case and produced the accused, namely Dharma Raju and Suresh Babu, before the Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Judge refused to remand them to judicial custody. Therefore, having no alternative, the police issued notices under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to Accused Nos.3 and 7, on the allegation that the petitioners had allegedly collected crores of rupees with a promise of paying huge interest and later, they neither paid the interest nor the principal amount, but induced the investors to accept shares in the college, thereby deceiving them in the affairs of Sri Harshita E.M. High School and Junior College, Tadikalapudi Mandal.

10. It is further submitted that a suit was filed, but the same was suppressed in the FIR, which runs into 12 pages. Without conducting any preliminary enquiry, the crime was registered. The brother of the de-facto complainant lodged a similar complaint in Telangana. Any investments made by the individuals were purely voluntary, in return for accepting certain shares in the educational institutions. Hence, there is no question of cheating or misappropriation of amounts.

11. Accused No.2 is a registered educational society from the year 2009. Land was lawfully purchased by the 3rd petitioner and leased to the society by virtue of lease deeds; school infrastructure constructed and institution is operational with staff and students. One Korrapati Sudhakar Rao (brother of de-facto complainant) and even the de-facto complainant was inducted as members to facilitate expansion; funds were secured as loans/contributions for infrastructure, not public "deposits". The de-facto complainant and his brother are internal part of management of the institution and having participated in its decisions cannot allege criminal character. Multiple civil recovery suits by individual lenders are pending; the dispute is being simultaneously pursued in civil forum. A prior, similar case with same cause of action and allegations vide Crime No. 218/2023, CCS-Hyderabad, concerning the same educational institution and transactions led to grant of regular bail by the Hon'ble High Court for Telangana on 27-09-2023; The Court noted that investments appeared voluntary. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 9 / Accused Nos.1 to 9 in the interest of justice.

12. Per contra, Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law.

13. It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. So far only 19 witnesses have been examined, and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. Several more material witnesses are yet to be examined. Section 5 of ‘the A.P Depositors Act.,’ is squarely applicable to the case on hand, by relying upon in the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Pothani Chandrasekhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh(2005 (2) APSJ 374). Several receipts were issued by the petitioners acknowledging deposits from gullible individuals. If the petitioners are enlarged on pre-arrest bail, they may evade the process of law. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

14. Mr. U. Akhil, learned counsel appearing for Sri Raja Sekhar Dandlamudi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, argued that nearly Rs.33 crores were collected by the school and society from gullible people. Whether Section 5 of ‘the A.P. Depositors Act.,’ would attract or not is a matter for trial. It is contended that there was a promise made by the petitioners, and huge amounts were collected, and this fact remains incontrovertible. It is further submitted that the petitioners have gone to the extent of using school children for obstructing the police. As the petitioners have collected Rs.33 crores from innocent individuals, they are not entitled to any relief, much less the relief of pre-arrest bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

15. Based on the available records, at the relevant point of time, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Telangana, in Crl.P. No.8693 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023, in respect of Crime No.249 of 2023 of CCS, DD, Hyderabad, observed that the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1993, would not be attracted against the petitioners. Consequently, they were held entitled to notice under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 in Crime No.249 of 2023 of CCS, DD, Hyderabad, were directed to appear before the investigating officer. The investigating officer was further directed to comply with Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as well as the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273), scrupulously, while ensuring that the petitioners would cooperated with the investigation. Accused No.3 also filed Crl.P. No.9136 of 2023 before the High Court of Telangana seeking regular bail for Accused Nos.1 and 2 therein. The High Court granted regular bail with certain conditions, observing that the investments appeared to have been made voluntarily, not with an expectation of being returned as promised, and that the educational institutions were in existence and being run by the petitioners therein.

16. The allegations of the de-facto complainant in the instant case are that a significant economic fraud where the accused, using a school and an educational society as fronts fraudulently collected Rs.33 Crores from the public by promising high returns. The petitioners admit to receiving the funds, but dispute the promise of returns, which creates factual disputes to be resolved during trial. However, whether this admission of receipt is sufficient to establish a prima facie case against them or not is a subject matter of trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda(2025 5 S.C.R. 485) laid down that anticipatory bail should be exercised sparingly in cases of economic offences, which threaten the financial fabric of society. Such offences, particularly those involving misappropriation of public funds and conspiracies, are serious and affect the nation's economic health, justifying the denial of anticipatory bail. Nevertheless, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar((2014) 8 SCC 273) and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI((2022) 10 SCC 51) held that arrest must be the last resort, particularly where accusations are civil in nature and custodial interrogation is not required.

17. Moreover, some of the petitioners have a history of criminal conduct, with multiple pending cases. It is alleged that when the police attempted to arrest them, the petitioners incited a mob and used children as human shields to obstruct justice. This led allegedly to an additional FIR for obstruction of justice as news reports and photographic evidence corroborate these actions, as contended by the learned Counsel for the de-facto complainant and the prosecution. Considering the petitioners' admission of collecting Rs.33 crores, their criminal antecedents, and their obstruction of justice, the anticipatory bail application is required to be dismissed against some of the Petitioners herein as it does not meet the criteria for such relief under Section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. Their conduct suggests a deliberate subversion of the law, a high risk of absconding, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses.

18. A petition dated 12.03.2025 was filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, in Crime No.20 of 2024 by the competent authority- cum-Director General of Police, CID, A.P., under Sections 4(3) and 4 of ‘the A.P Depositors Act.,’ seeking to make the ad-interim order of attachment issued in G.O.Ms.No.38, Home (General-A) Department, dated 04.03.2025, absolute in respect of the properties attached therein. Nearly five properties are mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.38, all valued at around Rs.14,74,52,000/-.The investigation conducted so far reveals that Accused No.3 and her family members lured the public under the guise of investments in the school project of Harshitha Educational Society, by assuring 24% interest within one year and a 5% share in the profits. Believing those representations, one Korrapati Sudhakar (NRI), a native of Guntur, introduced his relatives, friends, and acquaintances to Accused No.3. The complainant, Korrapati Chandrashekar, who is the brother of Sudhakar, along with fourteen others, deposited an amount of Rs.2.96 crores into the bank accounts of Sri Harshita E.M. High School and Junior College, which is being managed by Accused No.3 and the other accused. Similarly, Accused No.3 is alleged to have collected deposits amounting to Rs.30 crores from members of the public in the State of Telangana.

19. The investigation further revealed that after receiving the deposited amounts from the public, Accused No.3 and her family members purchased land to an extent of Ac.4.05 cents at Tadikalapudi Village, Kamavarappadu Mandal, Eluru District, and constructed buildings for Sri Harshita E.M. High School and Junior College, including hostels for boys and girls. They also constructed their residential house within the school campus. The accused neither returned the principal amount nor paid the interest promised to the victims. Whether the provisions of ‘the A.P Depositors Act.,’ are applicable to the instant case or not is a matter for trial as observed supra, and without examining the entire material, this Court cannot arrive at a conclusion on the applicability of ‘the A.P. Depositors Act’. The investigation further discloses that certain immovable properties are held in the name of Accused No.3, who is managing Sri Harshita E.M. High School and Junior College, and these properties are allegedly the proceeds of the deposits collected from victims in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. These properties are delineated in the annexure to the above-mentioned G.O. The record reveals that huge amounts were credited into the school accounts, society account, and also into the personal accounts of Accused Nos.2, 3, and 4. The de-facto complainant No.2, who is one of the victims, submitted a detailed report running into 12 pages. The investigation is still at a progressive stage. If necessary, custodial interrogation may also be warranted in respect of some of the accused who played a pivotal role in the case.

20. It is alleged by the de-facto complainants that the petitioners and other accused, running educational institutions for a considerable period, collected huge amounts from gullible people. The remaining amounts were allegedly diverted to benami businesses in sand, fish, and prawn ponds. Despite repeated requests, neither the principal nor the interest amounts were returned. MOUs and deposit receipts were either delayed or fraudulently issued after long persuasion. Large sums were allegedly diverted for personal enrichment through Sunkavalli Srihari and the father-in-law of Accused No.7. A Single Judge of the High Court of Telangana, in W.P. No.24968 of 2025, on 22.08.2025, granted interim suspension of the e-auction dated 19.06.2025, for a limited period, in the writ petition filed by Accused No.3 and Harshitha Educational Society. The petitioners were aggrieved by the issuance of G.O.Rt.No.428 dated 31.10.2024 by the Principal Secretary, Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad, for attachment of the land and buildings mentioned in the annexure to the G.O.

21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI ((2013) 7 SCC 439), a decision relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, at paragraph Nos. 34 and 35 it is held as under:

                  34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

                  35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.

22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh((2002) 3 SCC 598), at paragraph No. 2 it is held that the liberty of an individual is vital, but it is not absolute and must be balanced against societal safety, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. Courts must grant protection only after careful consideration of the facts, ensuring that witness safety and the integrity of justice are not compromised. As observed in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan((1987) 2 SCC 684), excessive emphasis on liberty without regard to circumstances can undermine justice and public faith in the system. It is further held at para No.3 that though bail is discretionary, it must be exercised judiciously and supported by cogent reasons, as each case depends on its own facts. Social standing of the accused is not a decisive factor and must be weighed up by other relevant circumstances. Since the nature and gravity of the offence are crucial considerations, the more heinous the crime is, the higher the likelihood of bail being denied. It is further held at para No.4 that in granting bail, courts must consider factors such as the seriousness of the accusations, potential punishment, supporting evidence, and risks of witness intimidation or threats to the complainant. A prima facie case must exist, though full proof is not required at this stage. Courts should also assess whether the prosecution is genuine, and if doubt arises about its legitimacy, bail may ordinarily be granted. It is further held at para No.4 as under:

                  “Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:

                  (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

                  (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

                  (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

                  (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”

23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SFIO v. Aditya Sarda(2025 SCC Online SC 764) paragraph No. 18, it is held that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes.

24. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement((2019) 9 SCC 24) at para No.69 it was observed thatarrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

25. In P. Chidambaram supra at para No.71 it is further held that the power conferred by article 21 of the Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the article, i.e.,‘… except according to a procedure prescribed by law’.

26. In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia((1995) 3 SCC 221) at para No.7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right of anticipatory bail is not a part of article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of article 21 of the Constitution. And its non-application with a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of article 21.

27. In Ram Kishna Balothia supra at para No.72 it is held that the legislative intent behind the introduction of section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rightssafeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under article 21 of the Constitution of India.

28. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra ((2011) 1 SCC 694) it is observed that anticipatory bail could be granted only in exceptional circumstances. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar ((2012) 4 SCC 379) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at para No.19 that anticipatory bail could be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant had falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. The said view also expressed in D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran ((2008) 1 SCC 213) , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain22 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal((2008) 13 SCC 305).

29. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain ((1998) 2 SCC 105) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that power under section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ being an extraordinary remedy, must be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of society. In economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

30. In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation ((2013) 7 SCC 466) it is observed at para No.23 that unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which affected the fabric of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country.

31. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal((1987) 2 SCC 364) the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.5 it is held that the entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequences to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.

32. In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar(2024 SCC OnLine SC 282)  a very pertinent observations have been made at para No.9, with regard to the powers of the court to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainantas per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan alias J.M. John Paul((2010) 1 SCC 679).

33. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. This court must be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may mostly hamper the investigation as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence.

34. In view of the above settled legal position, it is no longer res integra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country. The law aids only the abiding and certainly not its resistants.

35. Accused No.1 is Sri Harshita E.M. High School and Junior College, represented by its Principal-cum-Secretary, Nandigam Rani. Accused No.2 is Harshita Educational Society, represented by N. Rani. Accused No.3 is N. Rani, who allegedly played a crucial role in the offences. Accused No.5 is a female, aged about 25 years, and she is the daughter of Accused Nos.3 and 4. Accused No.6 is a male, aged about 75 years. Accused No.7 is not a member of the society or the institution, but he is the son of Accused No.6. Accused Nos.8 and 9 are husband and wife, while Accused Nos.7 and 8 are brothers. Accused No.7 is a Central Government employee. Considering the crucial and prime role allegedly played by Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 / Accused Nos.1 to 3, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to them. Hence, the petition in respect of Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 / Accused Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed.

36. Analysing the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner Nos.4 to 8/Accused No.5 to 9, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to Petitioner Nos.4 to 8/Accused No.5 to 9.

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

                  i. In the event of their arrest, the Petitioner Nos.4 to 8/Accused Nos.5 to 9, shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), with three sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

                  ii. The Petitioner Nos.4 to 8/Accused Nos.5 to 9, shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required;

                  iii. The Petitioner Nos.4 to 8/Accused Nos.5 to 9, shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

                  iv. The Petitioner Nos.4 to 8/Accused Nos.5 to 9, shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

                  v. The Petitioner Nos.4 to 8/Accused Nos.5 to 9, shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

                  vi. The Petitioner Nos.4 to 8/Accused Nos.5 to 9, shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.