Telangana High Court
Mohd. Fareeduddin Imtiaz vs The State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVASRAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4011 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
'BNSS') by the petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail in
Crime No.21 of 2025 of Central Crime Station, DD,
Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 316(2), 318(4) of BNS and Section 5 of the
Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'TSPDFEA').
2.1 The case of prosecution in brief is that on
19.02.2025 Dr. Revanth Jaiswal lodged a complaint with
the police stating that Mr. A.M.Naveen Kumar, S/o Late
A.P.Mallesha, R/o Basheerbagh, Hyderabad was his
classmate and schoolmate. They reconnected through a
Whats App group of their schoolmates on 02.12.2014.
Since 2015, a few schoolmates from the group, including
Mr. A.M.Naveen Kumar, regularly visited the
complainant's residence. During these interactions,
Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar claimed to be engaged in the bulk
business of gifts and novelties, supplying products to
multinational companies and handling branding activities,
promising high returns with lesser investment. He also
informed that he had other businesses, including real
estate. On 08.11.2022, Mr. A.M.Naveen Kumar induced
the complainant to invest money in his business by
offering huge profits. Believing him as a former
schoolmate, the complainant initially invested
Rs.50,000/- through a bank. On 13.12.2022,
Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar reported Rs.30,000/- profit, of
which he paid Rs.18,000/- as per their agreed 60:40
profit-sharing ratio.
2.2 In 2023, Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar presented a
labour license dated 13.01.2023, reinforcing to believe
that he is doing clear business. Subsequently, he showed
bills, quotations, and work orders from various firms and
requested further investments, offering huge profits.
Between 2023 and early 2024, he accepted multiple small
investments, returning minor profits and insisting on
reinvestment. He also provided documents such as a
business registration certificate, purchase orders for
Rainbow Children Medicare Limited, and tax invoices.
Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar was introduced to several friends
and relatives of the complainant, who visited his house on
different occasions. He took advantage of this and
convinced them that he was making good profits,
encouraging them to invest by promising high returns.
From April 2024 onwards, the amount of money invested
by the complainant and his friends and relatives increased
significantly. Many of them transferred money to
Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar through Dr.Jaiswal. The total
amount invested reached Rs.9.65 crores, but
Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar returned only a small portion,
approximately Rs. 1.60 crores.
2.3 The complainant invested a large amount of
money by selling a house worth Rs.1.75 crores, which was
in the name of his mother and her sister. He also sold
another plot in his name for Rs. 1.67 crores. Additionally,
he pledged gold in February 2024 for Rs.90 lakhs and
took personal loans amounting to Rs.70 lakhs. This total
amount was originally meant for investment in an
upcoming hospital. However, Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar
convinced him to invest in his business, promising high
returns within a few months. Initially, Mr.A.M.Naveen
Kumar returned small amount but avoided repaying larger
sums. Even those petty amounts he made them to re-
invest in his business. However, suspecting his activities,
they enquired into the matter and learnt that all his
activities are shabby and orally floated firm without any
physical existence of the firm. From January 2025, when
repeated requests were made for repayment,
Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar switched off his phone and kept
postponing payments with false promises. He issued a
cheque from Kotak Bank (No:00000033) for Rs.1 crore,
which was deposited in HDFC Bank on 13.02.2025.
However, it bounced due to a signature mismatch. It
became clear that Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar had committed a
criminal breach of trust for personal gain. When
pressurized for repayment, he started making threats,
including suicide threats and false allegations under the
SC/ST (POA) Act, to intimidate and prevent recovery
efforts. Dr. Jaiswal has bank statements proving the
transactions.
2.4 Naveen Kumar provided some receipts,
promissory notes, and cheques, but still failed to repay
the dues. Several payments were made in the presence of
witnesses, including Dr. Jaiswal's father, mother, wife,
brothers-in-law, cousin, and friends. The total investment
by Dr. Jaiswal and his relatives and friends amounts to
Rs. 8.07 crores. A detailed breakdown is as follows:
Amount invested by Dr.Revanth Jaiswal:
1. By sale of two plots Rs. 3.40 crores
2. Gold loan, etc. Rs.90 lakhs.
3. Unsecured loans, etc. Rs.70 lakhs.
Total: Rs.5.00 crores
Amount invested by Relatives & Friends:
1. Dr.N.Srinath - Rs.64 lakhs (Cash)
2. Dr.Raghavendra Rao-Rs.58 lakhs (Cash)
3. Mr. Yog Prakash (Brother-in-law) Rs.45 lakhs
(Cash)
4. Mr. Ratan Prakash (Brother-in-law)-Rs.42
lakhs (Cash)
5. Dr. Surya Prakash Tulariha (Father) - 39.5
lakhs (Cash)
6. Mrs. Madhu Tulariha (Mother) - 25 lakhs (Cash)
7. Mrs. Geeta Madhuri (Wife) - Rs.18.5 lakhs (Cash)
8. Mr. Shubham Jaiswal (Cousin)-Rs.15 lakhs Cash)
Total: Rs.3.07 crores
2.5 The complainant has attached proofs of his
income and bank transactions. It is suspected that the
money was transferred to Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar's
associates. It is evident that he deliberately deceived
investors under the pretext of high returns, causing
financial losses of Rs.8.07 crores. Hence the complainant
requested for legal action against Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar
for criminal breach of trust, cheating, and intimidation.
Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.21 of
2025 was registered for the offence under Sections
316(2), 318(4) of BNS and Section 5 of TSPDFEA.
3. Heard Sri P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior
Counsel, representing Sri Mirza Adnam Ahmed Baig,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Syed Yasar
Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent No.1-State and Sri Dharmesh
D.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2.
4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that respondent No.2-complainant has not
made any allegations against the petitioner and the
petitioner is not made as an accused in the First
Information Report and also his name was not mentioned
by the Investigating Officers in the remand case diary.
However, Investigating Officer calling upon the petitioner
to the police station under the guise of investigation, in
the absence of any allegations against him.
4.2 He further submitted that entire allegations
levelled only against Mr. A.M.Naveen Kumar and there are
no allegations against the petitioner. Mr. A.M.Naveen
Kumar was arrested on 03.03.2025 and basing upon his
confession, the police are repeatedly calling upon the
petitioner to the police station and detaining him for
hours together under the threat of showing him as
accused along with Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar, though there
are no allegations against the petitioner, either in the
F.I.R. or in the remand report. The Investigating Officers
basing upon the confession statement given by accused
No.1, are trying to implicate the petitioner as accused in
the present crime. He also submitted that basing upon
the confession statement, the Investigating Officers are
not entitled to implicate the petitioner as accused and the
same is not permissible under law.
4.3 He further submitted that there is no privity of
contract between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and
the petitioner has not received any amounts either from
Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar or respondent No.2. The
ingredients of Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS and
Section 5 of TSPDFEA are not attracted to the petitioner.
4.4 He also submitted that the petitioner is having
old aged parents, who are suffering with old age ailments
and the petitioner is the only bread winner in his family
and there are no criminal antecedents against him. The
petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he is ready and
willing to cooperate with the investigation and also he will
abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by
this Court.
4.5 In support of his contention, he relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar
vs. State of NCT of Delhi 1, wherein it was held as
follows:
"25. Law regarding exercise of discretion while granting a
prayer for bail under Section 438CrPC having been
authoritatively laid down by this Court, we cannot but
disapprove the imposition of a condition of the nature under
challenge. Assuming that there is substance in the allegation
of the complainants that the appellant (either in connivance
with the builder or even in the absence of any such
connivance) has cheated the complainants, the investigation
is yet to result in a charge-sheet being filed under Section
173(2) CrPC, not to speak of the alleged offence being proved
1 (2023) 7 SCC 461
before the competent trial court in accordance with the
settled procedures and the applicable laws. Sub-section (2) of
Section 438CrPC does empower the High Court or the Court
of Session to impose such conditions while making a
direction under sub-section (1) as it may think fit in the light
of the facts of the particular case and such direction may
include the conditions as in clauses (i) to (iv) thereof.
However, a reading of the precedents laid down by this Court
referred to above makes the position of law clear that the
conditions to be imposed must not be onerous or
unreasonable or excessive. In the context of grant of bail, all
such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the
accused before the investigating officer/court, unhindered
completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community
assume relevance. However, inclusion of a condition for
payment of money by the applicant for bail tends to create an
impression that bail could be secured by depositing money
alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose
and intent of the provisions for grant of bail."
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the petitioner is a prime suspect in the
present crime and the petitioner with a dishonest
intention colluded with Mr. A.M.Naveen Kumar/accused
No.1 and caused wrongful loss to respondent No.2 and
other victims. During the course of investigation, accused
No.1 confessed that he committed the offence and all the
amounts received from the complainant/respondent No.2
and other victims were given to his associates namely,
Mohd. Fareeduddin Imtiaz, who is the petitioner in this
criminal petition and two others. Basing upon the
confession statement, the Investigating Officers visited the
house of the petitioner, but he was absconded and diary
was seized in the presence of the father of the petitioner
and after perusal of the same, the papers are tored up and
they found some written statements, investments and
profits written on all papers from 04.01.2024 to
27.01.2024, 01.02.2024 to 05.02.2024 and there are
signatures affixed by the Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar/accused
No.1 and on some papers, both signatures of petitioner
and Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar/accused No.1 were also
available and from 06.02.2025 to 25.02.2025 papers are
missing. The said documents were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory for hand writing expert. Therefore,
respondent No.2 and other victims sustained huge
financial loss in the hands of accused No.1 and others
and the investigation is under progress. If the petitioner
is granted anticipatory bail, there is every chance to
influence the witnesses and to interfere with the
investigation. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner and
accused No.1 have committed grave offence and
respondent No.2 and his friends and relatives have
invested huge amount of Rs.8.07 crores and the said
amount was misappropriated by accused No.1 and the
petitioner. During the course of investigation, accused
No.1 specifically stated that the amounts, which are
received from respondent No.2 and other victims, were
given to his associates i.e. the petitioner and others. The
Investigating Officers seized the diary from the house of
the petitioner and also telephonic conversation would
clearly reveals that accused No.1 gave an amount of
Rs.6 Crores to the petitioner and the petitioner is not
cooperating with the investigation, on the other hand,
approached this Court and filed the present petition.
Since the investigation is under progress, if the petitioner
is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is every chance to
influence the witnesses and to interfere with the
investigation also and he may escape from the country, as
he is having passport. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitender Kumar
vs. State of Haryana 2.
8. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
2 (2012) 6 SCC 204
Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of
Bihar and another 3, wherein it was held as follows:
"12. Even the observations made by the High Court
while granting the anticipatory bail to Respondent 2-
accused that the nature of accusation is arising out of a
business transaction and therefore the accused is entitled
to the anticipatory bail is concerned, the same cannot be
accepted. Even in the case of a business transaction also
there may be offences under the IPC more particularly
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, etc. What is required to be
considered is the nature of allegation and the accusation
and not that the nature of accusation is arising out of a
business transaction. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that Respondent 2-accused has been charge-sheeted
for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420,
etc. and a charge-sheet has been filed in the court of the
learned Magistrate Court."
9. Having considered the rival submissions made
by the respective parties and after perusal of the material
available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged
a complaint against Mr. A.M.Naveen Kumar/accused No.1
on 19.02.2025, wherein it is specifically stated that he
and his friends and relatives have made huge investments
of Rs.9.65 Crores with him. Out of the said amount,
accused No.1 had paid an amount of Rs.1.60 Crores and
an amount of Rs.8.7 Crores and he is liable to repay the
same. When respondent No.2 and others approached him,
he challenged to do whatever to be done and he is
prepared to face any consequences and he also threatened
3 (2022) 14 SCC 516
them to foist a false case against them under the SCs/STs
(POA) Act, if they visit for due amount. The record further
reveals that the Police arrested accused No.1 on
03.03.2025. During the course of investigation, accused
No.1 stated that he has given the amount to his associates
namely Mohd.Fareeduddin Imtiaz, who is the petitioner
herein and two others. Basing on the said statement, the
police seized diary of the petitioner in the presence of his
father.
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor basing on
the instructions furnished by the Assistant Commissioner
of Police, Economics Offences Wing, CCS, DD, Hyderabad,
specifically stated that in the said diary, the signatures of
Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar/accused No.1 and the petitioner
are available and also found that some written statements
and certain schemes (investments and profits) were also
mentioned in some of the papers from 04.01.2024 to
27.01.2024 in the said diary. From 01.02.2024 to
05.02.2024, signatures of Mr.A.M.Naveen Kumar and
petitioner were also there. The said diary was sent to
F.S.L. for opinion and waiting for the said report.
11. According to the prosecution, as well as the
material available on record, it reveals that respondent
No.2 and other victims have invested huge amount with
accused No.1, who in turn transferred the above said
amounts to his associates including to the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner had received any amount from
accused No.1 or not, will come into light after completion
of investigation only and the investigation is under
progress.
12. It is pertinent to state that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jitender Kumar (supra), held that the accused
can be convicted even if not named in the FIR, provided
there is credible evidence linking the accused to a specific
role in the crime. The court emphasized that the
prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable
doubt, and delays in filing the FIR or uncertainties
regarding the time of death do not automatically invalidate
the prosecution's case if corroborated by reliable evidence.
13. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and gravity and seriousness of
the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory
bail to the petitioner at this stage, especially when the
investigation is under progress.
14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if
any, pending in this petition stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 02.04.2025
pgp
