Ragidi Thirupathaiah Thirupathi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5544 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ragidi Thirupathaiah Thirupathi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 17 September, 2025

         THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


            CRIMINAL PETITION No.11385 of 2025


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.1

and 2 in Crime No.169 of 2025 before the Sangareddy Town Police

Station, Sangareddy District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainants

lodged a report before the Police stating that Kanakadurga Chit

Funds Pvt. Ltd., Sadashivpet Branch, collected their monthly chit

payments in three schemes but failed to pay the prize or refund the

amounts. They claimed to have paid more than Rs.12,00,000/- in

total. They further alleged that the company closed its branches

and its officials, including the petitioners, did not return the

amounts despite repeated requests.

3. Heard Sri N. Amarnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

SKS,J

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

complaint was false and of civil nature and that the petitioners

were running a registered chit fund company under the Chit Fund

Act, 1982, and not a financial establishment under the TSPDFEA.

He further submitted that no deposits on interest were accepted

and the complainants, if aggrieved, should have approached the

Registrar of Chits for recovery under Sections 64 and 66 of the Act.

He contended that petitioner No.1 had resigned as director in the

year 2022, but was falsely implicated. He relied on earlier

judgments where similar cases under Section 5 of the TSPDFEA

were quashed. 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 same stating that the allegations leveled against the

petitioners are serious in nature. He further submitted that the

investigation was not yet completed and there are lot of victims in

this case. Therefore, at this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the

petitioners does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the

criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both learned counsel

and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it appears

SKS,J

that the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. As seen

from the record, there are several victims and a huge amount is

involved in this case. Further, the investigation is still in progress.

It is also noted that there are four other criminal cases pending

against the petitioners of a similar nature, which prima facie

indicates a habitual course of conduct. At this stage, granting pre-

arrest bail would hamper the investigation and may also result in

tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses. Considering

the gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the financial loss

caused to the victims, and the antecedents of the petitioners, this

Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail and the criminal

petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 17.09.2025 SAI