[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Sunkara @ Sunil Kumar Bobby vs The State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4212 OF 2026
DATE : 07.04.2026
Between:
Sunkara Bobby @ Sunil Kumar Bobby & another
....Petitioners/A.2 & A.3
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad.
..... Respondent
: ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their
arrest in connection with Crime No.1487 of 2025 of Kukatpally
Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. The offences
alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 338, 336(3),
340(2), 318(4) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short 'BNS').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.11.2025 at about
17:00 hours, the complainant T. Srikanth, r/o.Vaddepally
Enclave, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, lodged a complaint
stating that one P. Vijay Kumar approached him claiming that
he had influence in the Government and could secure a
government job for him. Believing the same, the complainant
agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.45,00,000/-. He initially paid
Rs.3,00,000/- as advance, thereafter Rs.20,00,000/- to Bobby
Sunkara, and Rs.25,00,000/- to P. Vijay Kumar at different
intervals. Subsequently, he was sent to Delhi for one month
training and then to Mumbai for six months of further training,
and was asked to wait for posting orders. However, even after
one year, he did not receive any job appointment, and upon
enquiry, he realized that P. Vijay Kumar, Bobby Sunkara, and
P. Arun Kumar had cheated him on the pretext of providing a
government job. Hence, he requested the police to take
necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the Police
registered the case against the accused for the above offence.
3. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent - State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that petitioners are innocent of the said allegations, that they
have been falsely implicated in the present crime, and that the
allegations in the complaint and remand report are vague,
exaggerated, and do not disclose any specific overt acts against
them. It is submitted that, as per the remand report itself, the
main allegations of inducement and collection of money are
attributed only to A.1, and the petitioners are not shown to have
played any direct role. The counsel further submits that the
allegations against the petitioners are omnibus in nature,
without any specific acts, dates, or transactions, and their
implication is based merely on suspicion. It is also contended
that A.1 has already been granted regular bail and the role
attributed to the present petitioners is much lesser, and
therefore, on the ground of parity, they are entitled to
anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the entire case is
based mainly on documentary evidence already in the
possession of the investigating agency, and that the dispute,
arising out of alleged financial transactions and promises of
employment, is essentially civil in nature. Hence, prayed this
Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed bail contending that the offence committed by the
petitioners is a serious in nature. Under the guise of getting
employment in Government organization, the petitioners along
with other accused have cheated the complainant and received
huge amounts. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to bail and
prayed to dismiss this petition.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
on either side and on perusal of the material available on
record, the allegations against the petitioners disclose a prima
facie case of cheating involving substantial amounts under the
guise of providing government employment. The role attributed
to the petitioners, though sought to be minimized, cannot be
brushed aside at this stage of investigation. Further, A.1 was
arrested and granted regular bail and that cannot be a ground
to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein. Considering
the gravity of offence and the manner in which the alleged acts
were committed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory
bail to the petitioners, as such, the same is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 07.04.2026
Rds
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4212 OF 2026
DATE : 07.04.2026
Rds
