ORDER : J.SREENIVASRAO, J. 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. 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. 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. 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, (2023) 7 SCC 461 , 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 before the competent trial court in accordance with the settled procedures and the applicable laws. Sub-section (2) of Section 438 CrPC 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. 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, (2012) 6 SCC 204 . 8. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another , (2022) 14 SCC 516 , 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. 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 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. 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.