Kancharla Atchuta Rao, v. The State Of Telangana,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.424 of 2026 DATE: 27.01.2026 Between:

Kancharla Atchuta Rao .... Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

Through SHO, P.S. EOW, Cyberabad.

.... Respondent/Complainant

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in FIR No.72 of 2025 of EOW Cyberabad Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) of the BNS and Section 5 of the TSPDFEA, 1999.

- 2 - 2.

The brief facts of the case are that the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that he had invested an amount of Rs.19,40,25,084/- in M/s. SSLS Real Estate business by transferring the funds to the account of the accused. However, the said amount was not returned. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) were entered into between the parties, and cheques were issued to the investors. Despite this, the accused failed to honor their commitments, misappropriated the invested funds, and thereby cheated the victims. Consequently, the complainant requested necessary action, and based on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the aforementioned offences.

3.

Heard Sri C. Lalith Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, the de-facto complainant had not invested any amount in the SSLS Real Estate business and that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He further contended that, even according to the complainant, the petitioner had invested

- 3 - in SSLS Creations, which is not a business entity but a moviemaking venture. The said movie was not released, and the petitioner had entered into an MOU with the complainant. Before the expiry of the MOU, however, the complainant lodged a report with the police. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in jail since 09.01.2026, that the material part of the investigation has already been completed, and that there is no need for the continued incarceration of the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing the criminal petition. 5.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and involve a huge amount of money. He further submitted that the investigation has not yet been completed and, therefore, prayed that the Court dismiss the criminal petition.

6.

In the 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 jail since 09.01.2026. As seen from the record, a Memorandum of

- 4 - Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the parties, wherein the stipulated period was three months. However, the complainant lodged a report before the police on 29.09.2025, prior to the expiry of the said period. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the duration 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 Principal Junior Civil Judge-cumMetropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

ii.

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

- 5 - 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: 27.01.2026 SS

- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.424 OF 2026 DATE : 27.01.2026 SS