Telangana High Court
Mallavalli Apparao vs State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4483, 4485 and 4537 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.7, 5 and 6 respectively, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.416 of 2025 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
1.1. Since accused Nos.5 to 7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.416 of 2025, all the three criminal petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.03.2025 at 2015 hours one Mr. Muvva Ramesh, proprietor of NSP International and Managing Director of Frumar Agri Foods Pvt Ltd and Tejas Food Industries LLP, the de facto complainant herein, stated that he have been in the business of manufacturing and exporting grocery products since 2010. They employed the petitioner herein in 2015 as a Junior Executive, who later became an 2 Export Manager. Over time, he, in connivance with transport and freight forwarding companies, misappropriated company funds through fraudulent means, including: 1). Inflating transportation costs Falsely increasing the number of lorries required for shipments. 2). Falsifying ocean freight expenses Exaggerating costs and diverting excess funds to personal accounts. 3). 3). Colluding with transporters and shipping agents Receiving illegal kickbacks from service providers. 4). Hiding communications Excluding the company management from negotiations to conceal fraudulent transactions. Their internal audit found that 60-70 lakhs were transferred to his relatives accounts, and he used the misappropriated funds to purchase 20 acres of land and residential assets in Hyderabad and surrounding villages. Hence, the de facto complainant requested legal action against the petitioners and other accused.
3. Heard Mr. S. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned 3 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed the offence and they have falsely implicated in the present crime. The entire allegations are levelled against accused No.1 only and the petitioners are not having any connection with the company of respondent No.2. The petitioner/accused No.5 is native of Narsapuram Village working as an auto driver and eking out his livelihood and he has nothing to do with the company of respondent No.2 and there is no specific role attributed against him. The petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 are residing in Hyderabad working as software employees and they are also not having any role in connection with the company of respondent No.2 and there are no specific allegations against them to attract the ingredients of Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS.
4.1. He further submitted that neither respondent No.2 nor the prosecution has not placed any iota of evidence that accused No.1 transferred the amounts belonging to respondent No.2 Company into the accounts of the petitioners. Respondent No.2 4 simply relying upon the computer generated bank statement alleged that the amounts belong to his company transferred at the instance of accused No.1 in the accounts of the petitioners and other accused. He also submitted that accused No.1 was arrested and he was enlarged on bail and entire investigation is completed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. The petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions, which are going to imposed by this Court. Unless the petitioners are granted anticipatory, they will put to great hardship.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that accused No.1 has involved in cheating and criminal breach of trust and transferred huge amount of more than Crore of respondent No.2's company amounts to the accounts of the petitioners herein and other accused, with an dishonest intention. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is a Proprietor of NSP International and Managing Director of Frumar Agri Goods Private Limited and Teja Food Industries LLP., wherein accused No.1 is working as Export Manager in connivance with transport and freight forwarding companies, misappropriated company funds through 5 fraudulent means including inflating transportation costs, falsifying ocean freight expenses, exaggerating costs and diverting excess funds to personal accounts of relatives, colluding with transporters and shipping agents, receiving illegal kickback from service providers, hiding e-mail and other official communications, excluding the company management and export department from negotiations to conceal fraudulent transactions.
5.1. He further submitted that accused No.1 in connection with the petitioners and other accused persons transferred huge amounts into their accounts. The petitioner/accused No.6 received an amount of Rs.1,20,45,000/- and the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 7 are received an amount of Rs.5,38,745/-. The petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 7 have not filed any piece of evidence that how they received the huge amounts into their accounts and they have not filed any document that the amounts belong to them. He also submitted that the petitioner/accused No.7 is the own brother of accused No.1 and he received huge amount belongs to the respondent No.2 Company from accused No.1. The petitioner/accused No.7 is the brother-in-law of accused No.1.
65.2. He also submitted that the petitioners and accused No.1 have colluded with each other and with an criminal conspiracy, the petitioners have facilitating the routing the money from the transporters, shipping freight forwarders and thereby routed money via transfer to the accounts of the petitioner and other accused to the benefit of accused No.1. The investigation is under progress. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses and the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners and other accused have committed grave offence with the collusion of accused No.1 and they have misappropriated respondent No.2's company funds through fraudulent manner and the investigation is under progress. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will influence the witnesses and interfere with the investigation and they are not entitled for grant of bail.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2, who 7 is the Proprietor of NSP International and Managing Director of Frumar Agri Goods Private Limited and Teja Food Industries LLP., lodged a complaint on 10.03.2025, wherein he specifically stated that the above said company has been in the business of manufacturing and export grocery and processed food products since 2010. In the said company, accused No.1 was an employee from 2015 as a Junior Executive and later he became and Expert Manager. Accused No.1 in connivance with transport and freight forwarding companies, misappropriated company funds through fraudulent means including inflating transportation costs, falsifying ocean freight expenses, exaggerating costs and diverting excess funds to personal accounts of relatives, colluding with transporters and shipping agents, receiving illegal kickback from service providers, hiding e-mail and other official communications, excluding the company management and export department from negotiations to conceal fraudulent transactions, and he colluded with the petitioners and other accused with a criminal conspiracy and misappropriated huge amounts into the accounts of his relatives and who had purchased agricultural lands residential estates in Hyderabad and in surrounding areas even in Vissannapet Village of Andhra 8 Pradesh. In the above said complaint, respondent No.2 stated that accused No.1 approximately Rs.60-70 lakhs were transferred into the accounts of the petitioners and other accused persons. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gachibowli Police Station, an amount of Rs.94.35 lakhs approximately transferred to the account of the petitioner/accused No.6 and an amount of Rs.5,38,471/- transferred to the accounts of the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and
7. Whereas, according to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, an amount of Rs.1,20,45,000/- was transferred to the account of the petitioner/accused No.6 and also transferred an amount of Rs. 5,38,745/- to the accounts of the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 7 by relying upon the additional material papers i.e., bank statements of the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 and the said amount belongs to respondent No.2 Company. Learned counsel for the petitioners has disputed the above said bank statement on the ground that the said documents are only computer generated copies and not authenticated documents and respondent No.2 has not filed any audit report of his company.
9
8. Whether the petitioners have received the amounts from accused No.1 or any other accused belonging to respondent No.2 company or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is at the initial stage. It is also relevant to mention herein that accused No.1 was arrested and thereafter he was enlarged on bail. Basing on granting of regular bail in favour of accused No.1, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for grant of anticipatory bail, especially when the investigation is under progress.
9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, especially when the investigation is under progress.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 30.04.2025 mar