Smt. Maddipati Sandhya Rani, v. State Of Telangana,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.546 of 2026 DATE: 23.01.2026 Between:

Smt. Maddipati Sandhya Rani and another .... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Rep by (SHO), EOW, Hyderabad.

.... Complainant/Respondent

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of bail to the Petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in FIR No.70 of 2025 of EOW Cyb(Cyberabad) Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), r/w 61(2) of the BNS, 2023.

- 2 - 2.

The brief facts of the case are that, on 25.09.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that she is a Director of M/s Himalayan Foil Solutions Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in the year 2019 and the company was successfully engaged in the trading of aluminum foil, wherein the raw materials are imported from overseas suppliers and distributed them across India to various clients as per their requirements. However, with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in December, 2019, they were forced to shut down the trading operations due to market disruptions and restrictions and to sustain the business during this challenging period, they diversified into Covid related products and began trading in PPE kits.

- 3 - also give cheques as security. Believing such assurances, they agreed to invest in her company and transferred a total amount of Rs.5,73,13,000/- and failed to repay the same and also issued cheque which was dishonored, as such, they lured amount of Rs.73 Crores. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above said offences.

3.

Heard Sri T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are number of cases registered by the various victims against the petitioners and the present crime is also registered in the month of September in Cyberabad and Crime Nos.65 and 68 are also registered by the same police in the month of September and in the said crimes, the trial Court has already granted bail vide order dated 24.10.2025 and till 24.10.2025 no PT Warrant is filed by the police for regularizing the arrest of the petitioners and the same was also mentioned in the

- 4 - bail order passed by the trial Court and all the crimes are registered in the same police station and the accused are deemed to be arrested in all the crimes. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to them by allowing this criminal petition.

5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against them are serious in nature and the petitioners herein are habitual offenders and apart from Crimes Nos.65, 68 and 70, there are 4 other crimes were also registered against the petitioners by the CCS Police Station, Hyderabad, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief, as huge amount is involved in this case and they have to investigate the same for recovery of the said amount and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6.

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioners are in jail since 29.11.2025 and the record shows that, with the similar

- 5 - offence, Crime Nos.65 and 68 were also registered and the police arrested the accused in the month of September and even though the present crime is also registered in the month of September, no application is filed before the police for regularization of arrest of the petitioner in the same police station. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the remand period of the petitioner for the last two months, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, subject to the following conditions:

i.

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

- 6 - ii.

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 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.

iii.

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 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 applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 23.01.2026 TU

- 7 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.546 OF 2026 DATE : 23.01.2026 TU