Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1384 (TS)

Hakim Peer Akber, Rahul v. State of Telangana

2025-11-04

K.SUJANA

body2025
ORDER : K. Sujana, J. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 by the petitioner/A.6 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.72 of 2025 of CCS Police Station, DD, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 316 (2), 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) r/w.61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023. 2. The facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by the complainant on 18.06.2025 stating that he was one of the directors of M/s. Trilliance Builders Pvt. Ltd., located at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. The complaint was against one Selva Kumar and Sunil Kumar (Directors), Shankar-personal Assistant to Sunil Kumar, Mrs. Radhika, and Sudhakar- marketing executives of Smart Investment Solutions, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. On 05.12.2023, Sunil Kumar was introduced at the Hyderabad office by Srinivasa Rao from Vijayawada, along with Mrs. Radhika and her husband Sudhakar Vishwa. They claimed that Sudhakar was involved in finance and had connections with companies offering private business loans. They strongly recommended Smart Investment Solutions as a reliable source for such loans. Based on their assurances, D.V. Ramesh and co-director S. Ranga Rao, along with Srinivasa Rao, traveled to Coimbatore and met Selva Kumar and Sunil Kumar, who offered a loan of Rs. 100 Crores against collateral for a period of 10 years. It is further alleged that Srinivasa Rao falsely claimed to be a retired High Court Judge and collected Rs.12 Lakhs from the complainants for travel and other expenses. Despite initial doubts, Mrs. Radhika assured them of her past success in securing large loans and explained that 4% of the loan amount had to be paid upfront for registration. Although the complainants requested only Rs.10 Crores, she insisted that loans below Rs.100 Crores will not be entertained and she agreed to help them in getting approval for Rs.10 Crores and demanded a bribe of Rs.30 Lakhs in cash in three installments and the same was paid on three different dates. 3. It is further alleged that additionally, Rs.1 Crore was transferred from the company’s account through cheque No.000016 dated 11.12.2023, HDFC Bank, SR Nagar Branch to Mr. Selva Kumar’s HDFC account in Coimbatore. Mrs. Radhika then promised immediate registration and disbursement, but after repeated delays, the complainants were called to Chennai and shown a Demand Draft of Rs. 96 Crores allegedly issued by SBI, Coimbatore. Mr. Selva Kumar’s HDFC account in Coimbatore. Mrs. Radhika then promised immediate registration and disbursement, but after repeated delays, the complainants were called to Chennai and shown a Demand Draft of Rs. 96 Crores allegedly issued by SBI, Coimbatore. Mr. Ramesh photographed the DD and verified it through his contacts at SBI branches in Hyderabad, Nellore, and Anantapur, who confirmed it as fake. Later, at Katpadi, they met Shankar, who directed them to meet Selva Kumar and Sunil Kumar at Chennai. Their associate Mr. Rahul took the DD to SBI, Mount Road Branch, where the bank confirmed it as forged one. After confrontation, the accused invited the complainants to Coimbatore, promising to resolve the issue via RTGS transfer. However, after waiting for a week, the complainants found the office vacated and the accused untraceable. Mrs. Radhika and her husband had also vacated their residence and disappeared. Further inquiry revealed that Selva Kumar and Sunil Kumar, along with their team, had defrauded multiple individuals of approximately Rs.25 Crores using fake DDs, forged documents, and by collecting blank stamp papers, ledger papers, promissory notes, and signed cheques, none of which were returned. Therefore, the complainant requested that a criminal case be registered against the accused and appropriate action be taken to recover Rs.1.42 Crores fraudulently obtained from them. Basing on the said complaint case was registered against the accused. 4. Heard Sri N.Venkataiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that allegations made against the petitioner are all false and only to harass the petitioner for settling the matter. The petitioner never met the complainants either directly or indirectly. He further submitted that there is no averment in the complaint to show that the petitioner is involved in this illegal transaction. The petitioner herein is a private employee and neither he received the money from the complainants nor involved in the alleged transaction. As such, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. He further submitted that there is no averment in the complaint to show that the petitioner is involved in this illegal transaction. The petitioner herein is a private employee and neither he received the money from the complainants nor involved in the alleged transaction. As such, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the accused have committed criminal breach of trust, created documents, forged the Bank DD for an amount of Rs.96.03 Crores with an intention to lure the victims under the guise of providing huge loans with simple interest, deceived the victims and cheated them to a tune of Rs.4 Crores. The petitioner herein is an active associate of A.1 in running this fraudulent business. The petitioner herein carried the forged demand draft to the State Bank of India, Mount road Branch, Chennai to give an impression of its genuineness and on verification by the bank officials it revealed that it is a forged document, and thereby petitioner fled away from the branch along with the forged document. He also wrongly revealed his name as Rahul instead of his actual name Hakim Peer Akber while handing over demand draft. A.3, A.4 and A.5 are still absconding and the defrauded amount has to be recovered from this petitioner also. If petitioner is granted bail there is every possibility of flight risk and he may influence or threaten the witnesses. The petitioner is a native of Coimbatore, Tamilnadu and he may not cooperate with the investigation which is at the initial stage, as such, prayed to dismiss this petition. 7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein showing that after knowing that the Demand Draft is fabricated, the petitioner disappeared from the Bank. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offences. In view of the severity of allegations against the petitioner this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.