Namini Sathish v. State Of Telangana.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8508 OF 2026 DATE : 18.06.2026 Between:

Namini Sathish.

...Petitioner-accused No.3

AND The State of Telangana.

...Respondent

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

2.

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in Crime No.274 of 2025 on the file of the Adilabad II Town Police Station, Adilabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 290, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). 3.

Heard Mr.Jillella Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the material available on record.

4.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused persons, under the guise of providing outsourcing employment opportunities and promising subsequent placements, induced several unemployed persons, including

the de facto complainant, to part with substantial amounts of money. It is alleged that despite collecting the said amounts, the accused failed to secure the promised regular employment. When the de facto complainant demanded refund of the amounts paid, the accused allegedly evaded repayment and further threatened the complainant with dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the present crime came to be registered.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no manner connected with the commission of the alleged offence. It is contended that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of an alleged statement said to have been made by him in connection with Crime No.20 of 2026 registered by Adilabad II Town Police Station. Except for the said statement, there is no independent material collected during investigation linking the petitioner with the present crime, much less any overt act attributable to him. He further submits that the petitioner is prepared to cooperate with the Investigating Agency in all respects and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail as he entertains a reasonable apprehension of arrest. 6.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the involvement of the petitioner surfaced during the course of investigation in Crime No.20 of 2026. It is further contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and that nearly sixteen criminal cases of similar nature are stated to be pending against him. According to the prosecution, the

investigation is still in progress and, if enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is likelihood of the petitioner interfering with the investigation, influencing witnesses, or otherwise prejudicing the prosecution case. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought.

7.

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

8.

A perusal of the complaint discloses allegations primarily against accused Nos.1 and 2, and there appears to be no specific reference whatsoever to accused No.3, namely the present petitioner. Admittedly, the alleged involvement of the petitioner surfaced only on the basis of a statement purportedly made by him before the police during investigation in another crime. Significantly, even the alleged confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 do not disclose the name of the petitioner or attribute any specific role to him.

9.

At the stage of consideration of an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to assess whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary and whether there exists prima facie material warranting denial of the discretionary relief. Mere implication based solely upon an alleged statement recorded by the police cannot by itself constitute a compelling ground to deny anticipatory bail. 10.

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the absence of any specific allegations against the petitioner in the First Information Report, the fact that his alleged involvement rests substantially

upon his own statement recorded by the police in another crime, the absence of material demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation, and the willingness expressed by the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to custodial detention. 11.

Furthermore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding possible interference with the investigation can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions while granting anticipatory bail. This Court, therefore, finds it a fit case to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. 12.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject following terms and conditions.

(A) The petitioner-accused No.3 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Adilabad II Town, Adilabad, on or before 03.07.2026. Upon such surrender or on arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer.

(B) There after the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

(C) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (D) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

13.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 18.06.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8508 OF 2026 DATE : 18.06.2026 mmr