Gonti Ramesh v. State Of Telangana,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 163 of 2026 DATE: 19.01.2026 Between:
Gonti Ramesh .... Petitioner/A-2 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, through Station House Officer, Jagtial Town P.S., Jagtial District .... Respondent/ Complainant
O R D E R
This criminal petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/Accused No.2 seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.657 of 2025 of Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 5 of Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, 'Depositors Act') and
- 2 - Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that, on 27.10.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged a report with the police stating that some persons informed him that they had invested money in a newly popular digital investment application called BITRONIX Global, which operates through multi-level marketing in the crypto sector, and that they were receiving high returns. They also informed him that the CEO of the application, J. Ravi Kumar, was coming to Jagtial and that a meeting regarding the app was being held at Shiva Sai Lodge, Jagtial. As per his instructions, they installed the Trust Wallet application and, believing the false promises, gave him money. Influenced by the words of A-1, many others also sent money either in cash or through bank transfers. Around 30 people invested approximately Rs.84 lakhs in this scheme about one month ago.
Subsequently, the amount stopped reflecting in the Trust Wallet, and A-1 continued misleading them, thereby cheating the complainant and several others. As such, the complainant prayed for necessary action. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case for the aforementioned offences. 3.
Heard Sri Madas Bharath Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
- 3 - 4.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent and unconnected with the allegations. Section 5 of the Depositors Act is not applicable. No specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner. The present allegations are similar, though the victims differ. Multiple FIRs have been registered for the same offence. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.12.2025, and the material part of the investigation has already been completed. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations involve serious financial crimes, with numerous victims. He further submitted that the investigation is ongoing and that, if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he might tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6.
In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.12.2025. As per the remand case diary, prosecution witnesses L.Ws.1 to 3 and others, including the investigating officer, have already been examined.
- 4 - Considering the facts, stage of investigation, and period of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2, subject to the following conditions: i.
The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.
iii.
The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
(presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 19.01.2026 TU
- 5 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.163 OF 2026 DATE : 19.01.2026 TU