Undralla Vasudha, v. The State Of Telangana Through P.S. Eow Cyberabad

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3546 of 2026 DATE: 23.03.2026 Between:

Undralla Vasudha and another .... Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 AND The State of Telangana, Through P.S. EOW Cyberabad.

Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad .... Respondent/ Complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 in FIR.No.59 of 2025 of EOW Cyberabad Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant was engaged in real estate business for 15 years and that in 2024 her daughter was introduced to Panyam Mahesh by a known person named Veerlauncle. Mahesh represented that he was offering profitable investments in plots and agarwood tree business. Believing his representations, the complainant and her daughter invested money for the purchase of plots and later in the agarwood business. They paid amounts for plots, followed by further investments. Mahesh issued cheques for some amounts but failed to provide returns, complete registrations, or deliver any promised profits. When questioned, his wife initially assured repayment but later denied responsibility. Mahesh allegedly claimed that the money was transferred to his mother-in-law Vasudha (in the USA) and further to Rohith.

The complainant alleges that Mahesh, along with Veerlauncle, Vasudha, and Rohith, acted in a pre-planned manner to deceive and cheat her and her daughter by making false promises and misappropriating the funds. Hence, requested for necessary action. Basing on the said complainant, the police registered a case for the above said offences. 3.

Heard Sri B. Pavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri M. Krishna Chaitanya, learned counsel

appearing for the de-facto complainant and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the allegations and they never met, interacted with or had any form of communication with any of the individuals from whom money was alleged collected. He further submitted that the petitioners are neither directors nor beneficiaries of the alleged business and that the petitioners are solely implicated due to their relationship with accused No.2. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition. 5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners stating that huge amount is involved in the present case and it has to be investigated and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for further investigation and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant submitted that the petitioners have not complied with the order dated 22.12.2025 pass in Crl.P.No.16511 of 2025

and that the de-facto complainant invested huge amount and the case is at the initial stage, as the huge amount is involved in this case and at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled for the bail and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7.

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel and on a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the allegations against the petitioners primarily arise from their association with Accused No.2. There is no prima facie material to show that the petitioners directly interacted with the complainant or handled the alleged transactions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the allegations against the petitioners, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in this case and this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4, subject to the following conditions:

i.

The petitioners shall surrender before the Station House Officer, EOW Cyberabad Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, in the event of arrest, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release them on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- each,

with two sureties, for the like sum each.

ii.

The petitioners shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case.

iii.

The petitioner No.1/accused No.3 shall surrender her passport before the concerned Court.

8.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 23.03.2026 SS

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3546 of 2025 Date: 23.03.2026 SS