Telangana High Court
Aryan Singh Chabbra vs The State Of Telangana on 30 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6349, 6354, 6357 and 6391 of 2025
% Dated 30.06.2025
# Aryan Singh Chabbra S/o.Harpreet Singh,
Aged about 39 years, R/o.Plot No.40 and 41,
Flat No. 004, MLA Colony, Lotus Pond,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034
....Petitioner/accused
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana
Hyderabad and another.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents :Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon (R.1)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2025 SCC OnLine 1157
2. (2017) 5 SCC 406
3. 2019 (9) SCC 24
4. 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 676
5. (2005) 4 SCC 303
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6349, 6354, 6357 and 6391 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest. 1.1. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime Nos.10 and 12 of 2025, accused No.2 in Crime No.11 of 2025 and accused in Crime No.215 of 2025. The de facto complainants have filed various complaints with similar allegations against the petitioner and other accused before the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Station, Cyberabad, and the said complaints were registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS') and Section 5 of Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'TSPDFEA'). Hence, all four criminal petitions are heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the facility of reference, the facts in Crl.P.No.6354 of 2025 is being referred to.
Brief facts of the case:
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that the de facto complainants have lodged a written complaint to the Deputy 3 Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad, on 11.02.2025, stating that M/s Capital Protection Force Private Limited (Falcon) is engaged in Invoice discounting and functioning from 4th floor, Office No.405, HUDA Techo Enclave, High Tech City, Hyderabad, since 2015 onwards. Invoice Discounting is a financial service in which, company can raise funds by selling their invoices to third party financial institutions at a discount rate. The company offered the opportunity to deposit in Falcon under the pretext of providing funds for invoice discounting. The deposit was structured with the promise of returns basis on the invoices they discounted, with clear agreements that specified maturity dates for repayment, including interest.
3.1. It is further averred that there are different invoice plans such are 1) 45 days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 11%-12%, 2) 90 days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 16%-18% and 3) 180 days or more days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 20%- 21.95%. The company is having bank account No.111405002867 of ICICI Bank, Gachibowli Branch and Escrow Account No.777705844888 in the same bank. The depositors have to transfer their deposit amount to the said account through online. The deposit range is from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5 Crores.
43.2. It is also stated that the de-facto complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.3.83 Crores by transferring from his account No.007101508028 of ICICI Bank. The other depositors namely 1) Vandana Soni has deposited an amount of Rs.2.36 Crs. by transferring from her account No.3111718567 Kokak Bank, 2) Silpa Pappagari has deposited Rs.64,25,000/-, by transferring from her account No.124710100007143 Union Bank, 3) Daina Nazerath has deposited Rs.1.27 Crores from her account No.346501500043 ICICI Bank, 4) Dr.Sarvana has deposited Rs.2.55 Crores in the name of his mother namely Rajamani Palanippan and transferred from his account No.50100639388449 HDFC, Kethakkam Branch, Chennai. Thus, the total deposit amount comes to Rs.9,38,25,000/-. 3.3. It is also averred that they have received monthly returns till 17.01.2025 and thereafter, no payment is received from the company. When the de-facto complainant and others visited the office of M/s. Capital Protection Force Private Limited, they found that the office is closed and nobody is lifting their phone calls and they came to know that the management of Falcon cheated the depositors and misappropriated their funds and caused wrongful loss to them. Hence the de-facto complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the accused persons namely Amardeep Kumar & Others. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.10 of 2025 was 5 registered against the petitioner and other accused for the said offences.
4. Heard Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Kathyaeni Ramshetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime as accused basing upon the confessional statement given by the other accused. The petitioner is Consultant of accused No.1 company and he is not having any role on the affairs of the said company. The petitioner himself invested an amount of Rs.1.35 Crores in accused No.1 company between 2017 to 2022 and the said amount is still lying with the company and the petitioner falls within the definition of victim but not as an accused. As per the Purchaser Services Agreement, the investors have invested the amount and they are entitled for reverse discounting fee and the said transaction would not attract Section 5 of the Act, especially the victims/de facto complainants have not deposited any amount and the same does not fall within the ambit of deposit as envisaged under 6 the Section 2(b) of the Act. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the victims have invested the amounts in accused No.1 company.
5.1. He also submitted that the petitioner has received the amount from accused No.1 company towards interest portion and Rs.65,000/- per month towards consultation charges to his account and he has not received any other amounts from accused No.1 company as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is also a victim in the hands of accused No.1 company like respondent No.2 and other victims. Accused No.1 company did not divert any amounts of the victims or respondent No.2 to the account of the petitioner. 5.2. He further submitted that even according to the documents relied upon by the prosecution, especially the income tax returns of accused No.1 company shows that accused No.1 company has transferred amounts in the name of Aryan Singh, who is none other than the son of accused No.2, who is a minor, however, the prosecution without properly verifying the said documents and without examining the same alleging that the said amounts were transferred to the petitioner's account merely because the petitioner name is also Aryan Singh.
5.3. He further submitted that even according to the documents, which are relied upon by the prosecution, it reveals that an amount of 7 Rs.1,500,000/- transferred from the account of the petitioner into accused No.1 company on 10.01.2018 and Rs.1,000,000/- on 14.02.2018. The above said documents clearly reveal that the petitioner had invested the amounts in accused No.1 company and the petitioner is also victim. He further submitted that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and he is suffering with several ailments. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court.
5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Krishnamohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1;
Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor :
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner/accused No.5 is not a Consultant and he is Chief Operational Officer (COO) of the Falcon Invoice Discounting and he looked after the entire affairs of Falcon and he is responsible for overseeing the operations of accused No.1 company and procedures of the Falcon Invoice Discounting. He is in a responsible position for implementation of the strategic plan of the company Falcon Invoice Discounting.
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157 8 6.1. He further submitted that the petitioner has not invested any amount in accused No.1 company. Accused No.1 company transferred an amount of Rs.1,62,55,619/- and an amount of Rs.1,86,80,705/- into the account of the petitioner. The petitioner collected a huge amount of Rs.14.35 Crores as deposits from the victims on behalf of 'Falcon' and out of the said amount, he transferred amounts to accused No.1 company and in turn, accused No.1 company returned amounts into the account of the petitioner. 6.2. He also submitted that the petitioner has not invested any amount as alleged in the petition either Rs.2.95 Crores or Rs.1.35 Crores, as pleaded in the main criminal petition or in the additional grounds. He further submitted that the petitioner and other accused have collected huge amount from the victims in the name of accused No.1 company. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of 37 witnesses/victims only and in their statements, they specifically mentioned that deposited an amount of Rs.30,73,99,047/-. 6.3. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation they revealed that the petitioner and other accused have collected huge deposits from 7,560 depositors from all over the country to a tune of Rs.4215 Crores, out of the said amount, they have diverted an amount of Rs.792 Crores to accused Nos.2 to 24 and their shell companies and accused No.1 company has failed to 9 return the amounts i.e., principal and interests, to the victims since January, 2025, and the accused persons along with the petitioner are absconding. He also submitted that the petitioner has committed serious offence and there is serious impact on the society. The investigation is under progress.
6.4. He also submitted that as per the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Act, the amounts which were collected by the petitioner and other accused from the victims/customers in the name of accused No.1 agreeing to pay the said amount with interest comes within the ambit of deposit. Hence, the ingredients under Section 5 of the Act are specifically applicable to the present case.
6.5. He further submitted that accused Nos.4, 8, 10, 11 and 18 have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.Nos.3521 and 3620 of 2025 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2025 on the file of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Station Cyberabad, and the same was dismissed on 26.03.2025. He also submitted that accused No.17 in Crime No.10 of 2025 and 11 of 2025 have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.3637 of 2025 and 3640 of 2025 for grant of anticipatory bail and the said criminal petitions were dismissed by this Court on 28.03.2025. Similarly, accused No.7 in Crime No.10 of 2025 has approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.3940 of 2025 seeking for grant of regular bail and this Court 10 dismissed the same on 02.04.2025. The grounds which are raised by the petitioner in the present case are also similar in nature and the investigation is under progress and the prime accused are absconding. The petitioner has played a key role in accused No.1 company and he also one of the prime accused in the crimes and there are specific and serious allegations are levelled against him and huge amount belonging to the innocent victims were transferred and diverted from accused No.1 company to the account of the petitioner and other accused and to their shell companies and misappropriated the same. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and these criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed.
6.6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Virupakshappa gouda and another v. State of Karnataka and another 2.
Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 :
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner is Chief Operational Officer (COO) of accused No.1 company and he is managing the company day-to-day business operations, strategic planning, implementation, financial management - financial operations, budgeting, policy development & implementation, 2 (2017) 5 SCC 406 11 customer experience, talent acquisition and employee management etc., and he is having important role in the said company. The petitioner alleged in the main criminal petition that he invested an amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/- in accused No.1 company, whereas in the additional grounds, it was alleged that he invested an amount of Rs.1.35 Crores between 2017 to 2022, though he has not invested any amount in accused No.1 company, on the other hand, the petitioner and other accused have misappropriated huge amount deposited by the depositors/victims and diverted the amounts to their personal accounts as well as their shell companies. 7.1. Learned counsel further submitted that accused No.1 has paid the principal amount and interest to the depositors only up to January, 2025 and thereafter, they stopped the payment to the victims/depositors. She also submitted that as per the agreement, there was maturity date and also repayment date, which evidently proves that the amounts given by the victims fall under the ambit of 'deposit'. Hence, the offence under Section 5 of the Act is very much attracted against the petitioner.
7.2. Learned counsel also submitted that accused No.1 company was not registered with the Registrar of Companies for taking business activity of invoice discounting, however, accused No.1 company had lured thousands of investors across the country to 12 invest into the Ponzi scheme through attractive interest rates and further submitted that the petitioner and other accused have methodically devised a plan to make the investors believe in their Ponzi scheme by making use the names of the world's most renowned companies, such as, Amazon, Flipkart, Addidas, Goderj, etc., to name a few and declared 'deals' for instruments into invoice discounting with these companies. Falcon had developed in application through which investors were instructed to register, make their payments, receive their payment receipt and agreement copies and make it look absolutely genuine. The petitioner is having key role in accused No.1 company and he did day-to-day business management and operations, financial management etc., and he is the key conspirator in the crime.
7.3. Learned counsel further submitted that one of the victims sent mail to Dabur Cares and TATA 1 MG to ascertain the affairs of accused No.1 in turn they sent reply mail to the victims on 11.05.2025, wherein they specifically stated that they are not having any association or affiliation with Falcon Group and they were not parties to any of the agreements and have no involvement whatsoever in the Falcon and they have not given authorization to use of its name and trademark by Falcon in any manner and any deposit done by the victim with Falcon was at their own risk and subject to the agreement 13 between the victim and Falcon. She further submitted that accused No.1 is Director and Shareholder in 14 companies in India, 4 companies at abroad and the petitioner and other accused diverted the huge amount into their accounts and their shell companies. The petitioner is also having important role in 'VIRGO HOLDING', which is a shell company of accused No.4.
7.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not a victim and he never deposited any such amount in accused No.1 company and has not filed any piece of evidence to establish that he invested the amount. She further submitted that the Bank statement relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is pertaining to Kotak Mahindra Bank and the above said account was closed long back and the petitioner is opening a Bank account No. 900001502727, which is active from 01.01.2018 to 10.06.2025, which clearly reveals that several amounts were transferred from Falcon into the account of the petitioner.
7.5. The petitioner is COO of accused No.1 company and to support her contention, she relied upon the document, i.e., Strategic Investment Proposal, which is filed along with the counter dated 09.06.2025, wherein the petitioner was shown as authorized signatory and COO of accused No.1 company and signed on the said document. Hence, the contention raised by learned Senior Counsel for the 14 petitioner that the petitioner is only consultant to accused No.1 company is not true and correct. She further submitted that the petitioner himself in his website specifically mentioned that he is the COO of accused No.1 company. She further submitted that accused No.20 in her statement specifically deposed the role of the petitioner. 7.6. Learned counsel further submitted that accused No.1 company has violated Factoring Regulation Act, 2011, Payment and Settlement System Act, 2017, Income Tax Act and GST Act. The petitioner and other accused have played fraud upon innocent 7056 depositors from all over the country and they have collected huge amount more than Rs.4,215 Crores from the victims and out of which, Rs.792 Crores were diverted into the account of accused Nos.2 to 24 and their shell companies. Hence, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses and he is a flight risk and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also required for conducting investigation. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and the criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed.
7.7. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following judgments:
1. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement 3; and 3 2019 (9) SCC 24 15
2. Suman Chattopadhyay v. Republic of India 4 Reply submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner :
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submitted that the judgments which are relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that the above said judgments arise under PMLA Act and as per the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, there is a specific bar to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the accused, whereas, the present crime was registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 5 of TSPDFEA. The parameters for deciding anticipatory bail application in respect of BNS offences and PMLA offences are different and distinctive.
Analysis :
9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that basing upon the complaint lodged by the de facto complainants, Crime Nos.10, 11, 12 and 215 of 2025 were registered for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 5 of 'TSPDFEA'. In Crime No.10 of 2025, the de facto complainants specifically stated that an amount of Rs.9.38,25,000/- has been 4 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 676 16 deposited by them in accused No.1 company. In Crime No.11 of 2025, the de facto complainants stated that an amount of Rs.58.5 lakhs has been deposited by them in accused No.1 company. In Crime No.12 of 2025, the de facto complainant stated that an amount of Rs.4,49,68,955/- has been deposited by her in accused No.1 company. In Crime No.215 of 2025, the de facto complainant specifically stated that an amount of Rs.1,27,60,000/- has been deposited by her in accused No.1 company. In the above said crimes, the de facto complainants have specifically stated that accused No.1 Company operating the affairs under the name and style of M/s.
Capital Protection Force Private Limited (Falcon) since 2015. The said Company is engaged in Invoice Discounting. The Invoice Discounting is a financial service, wherein the companies raise funds by selling their invoices to a third party financial institution at a discounted rate. The company offering invoice discounting typically agrees to buy the invoices and provides immediate payment, minus a discount fee. As per the Invoice Discounting Plans, basing on the agreement, the interest rate is 11% - 12% p.a. for 45-Days; 16% - 18% p.a. for 90 days; and 20% - 21.95% p.a. for 180 or more days.
10. The de facto complainants further stated that they have received their monthly returns up to 17.01.2025 only, and their deposits amount maturity was due on multiple dates throughout the 17 year 2025. Even after completion of maturity period, accused No.1 company had not returned the monthly returns along with capital amount to their respective accounts and there is no response from accused No.1 company as well as from the petitioner and other accused and when they enquired about affairs of the company, accused No.1 office was closed and the petitioner and other accused were switched off their mobile phones. Immediately de facto complainants have lodged the complaints and basing on the same, the above said crimes were registered.
11. The specific case of the prosecution is that during the course of investigation, investigation agency found that under the guise of Invoice Discounting in the name of Falcon, the accused persons have collected huge amount of Rs.4,215 Crores from 7,560 deposits all over India and accused No.1 company diverted an amount of Rs.792 Crores to the account of accused Nos.2 to 24 and their shell companies and also misappropriated the amounts of the victims.
12. The specific case of the prosecution as well as unofficial respondent that the petitioner is having major role in accused No.1 company and he is Chief Operating Officer (COO) and he is managing day-to-day affairs of the company including business operations, strategic planning, implementation, financial management-financial operations, budgeting, policy development and implementation, 18 customer experience, talent acquisition and employee management etc. In support of their contention, they relied upon the document namely 'Strategic Investment Proposal', which was filed along with the counter affidavit. The said document clearly reveals that the petitioner has signed as C.O.O. of Falcon group as authorized signatory. Similarly, other documents also reveal that the petitioner himself in his website specifically mentioned that he is the C.O.O. of accused No.1 company. Whether the petitioner has discharged his duties as C.O.O. or only as Consultant of accused No.1 company will come into light after full fledged investigation or during the course of trial.
13. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner himself deposited an amount of Rs.1.35 crores in accused No.1 company, similar to the other depositors, and the petitioner is a victim in the hands of accused No.1 company, is concerned, the specific case of prosecution is that the petitioner had collected huge amount of Rs.14.35 crores from 17 victims on behalf of Falcon and out of the said amount, he transferred some amounts to accused No.1 company and in turn accused No.1 company returned the amounts into the account of the petitioner and the petitioner did not deposit any amount in the account No.1 company. Whether the petitioner deposited his own amount of 19 Rs.1.35 crores in accused No.1 company or he had collected the amount of Rs.14.35 crores from the victims or he transferred the amounts to the accused No.1 company and in turn he received the amounts from the accused No.1 company, these aspects will also come into light during the course of investigation.
14. The record further reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he and other accused have received the huge amounts from the victims under the scheme of Invoice Discounting and returned the interest as well as principal amount upon maturity to the victims up to January, 2025 only. Thereafter, the petitioner and other accused have failed to remit the interest and the principal amount to the victims. The specific case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 company diverted the amounts belonging to the victims into the accounts of accused Nos.2 to 24 and their shell companies and misappropriated their amounts. The record reveals that in the agreement there are specific clauses incorporated, such as, maturity date, repayment date, and period of deposit and rate of interest payable to the depositors/victims along with principal amounts. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the amounts which were received by from the victims under the guise of the scheme 'Falcon' comes within the meaning of deposit as envisaged 20 under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 5 of the Act is applicable.
15. Insofar as other contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner is not arrayed as accused in Crime No.215 of 2025 and the Investigating Officers are taking coercive steps against the petitioner is concerned, the record reveals that the petitioner is an accused in Crime Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2025, wherein there are specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner and other accused regarding diversion and misappropriation of huge amount of Rs.4,215 Crores, which was collected from the victims under the name and style of Falcon. In Crime No. 215 of 2025 also, very same allegations are levelled against accused No.1 company and the investigation is under progress.
16. In respect of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that accused No.1 company is not registered with the Registrar of Companies and lured thousands of depositors in their scheme by making them to believe in their Ponzi scheme by using the names of the world's most renowned companies, such as, Amazon, Flipkart, Adidas, Godrej, etc. to name a few and declared 'deals' for instruments into invoice discounting with these companies, though there is no privity of contract between the said companies with accused No.1 company and accused No.1 company has violated 21 Factoring Regulation Act, 2011, Payment and Settlement System Act, 2017, Income Tax Act and GST Act, are concerned, the said aspects also will come into light during the course of investigation only, especially when the investigation is under progress.
17. In P. Krishna Mohan Reddy supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the legal inadmissibility of confessions and statements made by an accused, particularly in relation to Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of the CrPC. The Court held that any confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25, even if voluntary, and if made while in custody, it is inadmissible unless recorded before a magistrate as per Section 26. Section 27 carves out a narrow exception, allowing only that portion of the statement that leads to the discovery of a fact to be admissible, and only against the maker. Under Section 30, a confession implicating a co-accused can be used only if both accused are being jointly tried for the same offence, the confession implicates both parties, and is duly proved in court--conditions not fulfilled at the anticipatory or regular bail stage. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from accused persons, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, cannot be used to implicate co-accused as such statements are not made under oath, are not subject to cross-examination, and are hit by the bar of Section 162 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that even if a confession appears 22 reliable, it cannot be used at the bail stage unless it has been tested during trial and meets all evidentiary requirements. The judgment underscores the principle that statements or confessions by an accused cannot be used to prejudice the case of a co-accused unless proven in a joint trial under strict legal safeguards, ensuring the protection of fair trial rights.
18. The above said judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand on the ground that there are specific and serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner that the petitioner himself has collected huge amount of Rs.14.35 Crores from the victims on behalf of Falcon and out of the said amount, he transferred some amounts to accused No.1 company and in turn accused No.1 returned the amounts into the account of the petitioner. Similarly, accused No.1 company collected huge amount of Rs.4215 crores and diverted huge amounts into the accounts of accused Nos.2 to 24 and their shell companies.
19. In V. Vijay Sai Reddy supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while deciding bail applications, courts must consider various factors such as the nature and seriousness of the accusation, the strength of the supporting evidence, the severity of the potential punishment, the character and circumstances of the accused, the 23 likelihood of the accused appearing for trial, and any risk of witness tampering. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, the requirement is only to assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe in the existence of a case against the accused and not to demand evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This reflects the legislative intent to permit bail based on a evaluation, rather than a detailed assessment of guilt.
20. In P. Chidambaram supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for grant of anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving economic offences like money laundering, reiterated that such relief should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It emphasized that custodial interrogation is often essential during investigation, as it can lead to discovery of concealed material and crucial information, which might be obstructed if the accused is protected by pre-arrest bail. Referring to State v. Anil Sharma, the Court noted that interrogation under bail protection becomes a mere formality, while custodial questioning is more effective. In cases involving economic offences, the Court highlighted their seriousness and complexity, observing that such crimes are committed with deliberate design, harming the economy and public interest. Economic offences were described as a class apart, requiring a different approach to bail. It relied on precedents like Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI and Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar 24 Jain, stressing that personal liberty must be balanced against the need for effective investigation, especially where cross-border money trails and multiple stages of laundering are involved. In the specific case discussed (related to P. Chidambaram), the Court found that the stage of investigation, nature of allegations, and materials collected including international inputs justified denial of anticipatory bail. It concluded that granting such relief would hamper investigation, and that Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be invoked only when the allegations appear frivolous or groundless, which was not the case here.
21. The aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is pertaining to the offence registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act). As per Section 45 of the PML Act, there is a specific bar for granting anticipatory bail, whereas in the case on hand, the crimes were registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 5 of TSPDFEA.
22. It is relevant to place on record that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal 5, wherein it was held that in a series of decisions culminating in the rejection of anticipatory bail for P. Chidambaram, reiterated that economic offences like money laundering require a different legal approach, 5 (2005) 4 SCC 303 25 given their complex, calculated, and far-reaching impact on the national economy. Custodial interrogation was held to be not only legally permissible but often necessary to uncover deep-rooted conspiracies, especially when the accused may possess critical information hidden behind layers of financial transactions. The Court emphasized that Section 438 CrPC, which governs anticipatory bail, is an extraordinary remedy and must be exercised sparingly, only when accusations appear manifestly false or frivolous. Pre-arrest bail, if granted routinely, would frustrate investigation and defeat the purpose of uncovering concealed evidence, especially when international links and complex layering of funds are involved. Thus, in cases involving serious allegations of economic offences, anticipatory bail should be denied to enable effective and meaningful investigation.
23. In Serious Fraud Investigation Office supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this Court has consistently emphasized 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.
23. In view of the above settled legal position, it is no more 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 26 serious threats to the financial health of the country. The law aids only the abiding and certainly not its resistants. When after the investigation, a chargesheet is submitted in the court, or in a complaint case, summons or warrant is issued to the accused, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. If he is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the Court taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious economic offences or heinous offences. In such cases when the court has reason to believe that the person against whom the warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant could not be executed, the concerned court would be perfectly justified in initiating the proclamation proceedings against him under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The High Courts should also consider the factum of issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proclamation proceedings seriously and not casually, while considering the anticipatory bail application of such accused.
27. In none of the impugned orders, the High Court has bothered to look into the proceedings conducted, and the detailed orders passed by the Special Court for securing the presence of the Respondents - Accused. It cannot be gainsaid that the judicial time of every court, even of Magistrate's Court is as precious and valuable as that of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The accused are duty bound to cooperate the trial courts in proceeding further with the cases and bound to remain present in the Court as and when required by the Court. Not allowing the Courts to proceed further with the cases by avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders of the Court, and trying to delay the proceedings by hook or crook, would certainly amount to interfering with and causing obstruction in the administration of justice. As held in Srikant Page 50 of 55 SLP (CRL.) No.13956 of 2023 Upadhay's case (supra), when warrant of arrest is issued or proclamation proceedings are initiated, the accused would not be entitled to invoke, except in exceptional cases, the extraordinary power of the court to grant anticipatory bail. Granting anticipatory bail is certainly not the rule. The respondents/ accused, who have continuously avoided to follow the due process of law, by avoiding attendance in the Court, by concealing 27 themselves and thereby attempting to derail the proceedings, would not be entitled to the anticipatory bail. If the Rule of Law is to prevail in the society, every person would have to abide by the law, respect the law and follow the due process of law.
24. In above said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized on the aspect that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, particularly in serious economic offences involving large- scale fraud, public money, or complex financial crimes. Such offences are distinct and grave, posing serious threats to the country's economy and financial stability. When an accused evades the legal process by avoiding summons or warrants, concealing themselves, or otherwise obstructing the judicial proceedings, they demonstrate a clear disregard for the rule of law. In such circumstances, especially when non-bailable warrants have been issued or proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated, the courts should take a strict view and generally deny anticipatory bail. Granting such relief to individuals who willfully avoid the legal process undermines the administration of justice and delays legal proceedings. Therefore, except in exceptional cases, those who attempt to derail the process should not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
25. In the case on hand, there are serious and specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and other accused that they have 28 collected huge amounts of Rs.4,215 crores from 7,516 deposits across the India under the scheme 'Invoice Discounting' by Falcon and out of the said amount, accused No.1 company has diverted an amount of Rs.792 Crores into the accounts of accused Nos.2 to 24 and their shell companies. The specific allegations levelled against the petitioner are that he has collected Rs.14.35 Crores from 17 depositors and transferred it to accused No.1 company and in turn, accused No.1 company has transferred some amounts to the petitioner's account and misappropriated the funds of the innocent depositors/victims.
26. It is also relevant to mention that accused Nos.4, 8, 10, 11 and 18 have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.Nos.3521 and 3620 of 2025 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2025 on the file of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Station Cyberabad, and the same was dismissed on 26.03.2025. Further, accused Nos.17 and 7 in Crime No.10 of 2025 have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.Nos.3637 and 3940 of 2025 for grant of anticipatory bail and the said criminal petitions were dismissed on 28.03.2025 and 02.04.2025 respectively, and accused No.17 in Crime No.11 of 2025 has filed Crl.P.No.3640 of 2025 for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed on 28.03.2025.
29
27. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and seriousness of the offences and also the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned supra, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the above said crimes, especially when the investigation is under progress.
28. Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date:30 .06.2025 L.R. Copy to be marked.
mar/pgp