Patibandla Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi v. State Of Telangana,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2632 of 2026 DATE: 06.03.2026 Between:

Patibandla Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi and another ..... Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through EOW Police Station, Cyberabad.

.....Respondent/complainant : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of bail to the Petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5 in FIR No.2 of 2026 of EOW Cyb (Cyberabad) Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), r/w 61 of the BNS and Section 5 of the TGPDFEA.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 20.01.2026, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating

that the complainant along with family got in acquaintance with the A.1 and believing his words, the complainant arranged a meeting in his house inviting all his family members where in A.1 induced them to invest with his companies to gain good returns every month. Believing his words, the complainant and his family members approached A.4-A.7 and invested a total amount of Rs. 8.5 crores. It is further alleged that A.1 and his company paid them returns as promised after signing an MOU with A4 & A5 and got the returns till Aug 2024. Further, the payments were stopped. Hence, he requested for taking necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above said offences.

3.

Heard Sri B. Bhagath Sain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent -State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even as per the complaint itself, there is no such deposit made by the complainant and even according to the de-facto complainant, whatever, the amount invested in the business,

is an investment in the business and it is not a deposit. Hence, the offence under Section 5 of the TGPDFEA is not applicable to the present case and the remaining offences are punishable below seven years and they are in jail since 05.02.2026 and the material part of the investigation was already completed and the police custody of the petitioners herein is already taken by the investigating authority and examined the same, therefore, there is no such investigation is pending to remain the petitioners in the jail. It is further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court. As such, the petitioners herein are entitled for the bail and 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 it is a huge financial fraud and Rs.8.5 Crores is involved in this case. Further, the petitioners herein have also induced more than 110 innocent persons in depositing the amounts and they did not revealed where that amount is send by the petitioners and in view of the police custody, they are not revealing the bank accounts

or other details for further investigation, therefore, they are not entitled for the bail 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 herein are in jail since 05.02.2026 and as seen from the record, even according to the de-facto complainant, he invested the amount with the accused and also all the family members also invested the amount with accused Nos.4 and 7 and there is an MOU entered between the petitioners herein and the de-facto complainant, wherein it is mentioned as a loan given to the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

i.

The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a

like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Junior Civil JudgeCum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at L. B. Nagar.

ii.

The petitioners 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 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 :06.03.2026 TU

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2632 OF 2026 DATE :06.03.2026 TU