ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) by the petitioners/accused seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.08/RCO-CR-2/2025 of Anti Corruption Bureau, City Range 2, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7(c), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 , Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 406 , 409 and 420 read with 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . 2. The present case arises from an FIR registered by the Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB), Hyderabad, based on a complaint dated 12.02.2022 submitted by four research scholars of Osmania University. The complaint alleged that during a routine inquiry into construction activities undertaken during the tenure of Petitioner No.1, several irregularities came to light. The key allegations pertaining to financial mismanagement and procedural violations in the execution of works related to the Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies (herein referred as “RCUES”), a body funded and governed by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, and administratively supported by Osmania University. 2.1. It is alleged that petitioner No.1, during his tenure as Director of RCUES, misused his official position by approving fake quotations in collusion with petitioner No.3 to favour one Mahesh Narayana for construction work valued at Rs.18,82,105/-. The FIR also states that the works were executed through a private consultant rather than through the University's Building Division or other government engineering bodies, resulting in a purported loss of Rs.78.34 Lakhs. Audit reports are said to have raised objections to these transactions. Additionally, allegations against petitioner No.2 states that he embezzled funds while serving as Research Officer in a solid waste management project by misappropriating RCUES resources and diverting them to his private firm, viz., Skyline Archon Private Limited, causing a loss of Rs.1.45 Crores. It is also alleged that several assets, including laptops, were not returned after the project concluded. 3. Heard Mr. V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel representing Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent ACB. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offence and they were falsely implicated in the present crime. 3. Heard Mr. V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel representing Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent ACB. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offence and they were falsely implicated in the present crime. The allegations made in the complaint pertaining to the years 2015-2020, whereas the complaint was lodged on 06.03.2025. The allegations made in the complaint does not attract the ingredients of Sections 7(c), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 , Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the petitioners. 4.1. He further submitted that the FIR is entirely baseless, politically motivated and filed with significant delay almost five years. It is submitted that RCUES is an autonomous institution, fully funded and governed by the Ministry of Urban Development. As per the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered in the year 2013, all administrative and financial powers vested with the Governing Council, chaired by the Vice Chancellor of Osmania University. Petitioner No.1, as Director, had limited authority restricted to routine functioning and was not competent to approve tenders or take financial decisions independently. 4.2. He further submitted that all the works, including the construction of a new dining hall and renovation of RCUES facilities, were duly approved by the Governing Council in its 13th and 14th meetings and executed following standard procedures such as e-tendering. The total project cost is Rs.2.74 Crores, resulting in a saving of Rs.15.49 Lakhs, as confirmed by audit reports, thereby contradicting the allegations of loss. Additionally, all objections raised in audit reports during 2015– 2020 were duly closed and ratified by the Governing Council. 4.3. He submitted that that petitioner No.2 was a contractual employee, with no authority to independently make financial decisions or approve infrastructure procurement. All requisitions from him were subject to approval by the Director and the Governing Council. The allegation that he diverted RCUES assets or manipulated employee salaries is unsupported by any record and he had sent repeated requests to the University to relieve him from duty and collect the assets were ignored. 4.4. He further submitted that petitioner No.3 is only Sub- ordinate Officer and there are no allegations against him. The allegation that he diverted RCUES assets or manipulated employee salaries is unsupported by any record and he had sent repeated requests to the University to relieve him from duty and collect the assets were ignored. 4.4. He further submitted that petitioner No.3 is only Sub- ordinate Officer and there are no allegations against him. The complainant filed the present complaint pertaining to the allegations of the years 2015-2020 and not explained and not stated any reason for the delay in lodging the complaint. The complaint was lodged by the complainant with a political vendetta from rivals within the University, at the instance of the rival faculty members, particularly one Mr. Kumar Molugaram, who was contesting for the Vice Chancellor post. The complaint was facilitated through confidential internal documents leaked to the complainant, who is not entitled to access such records. Initially, no action was taken on the complaint due to its frivolous nature, but the complainant later filed a writ petition to compel the authorities to register the F.I.R., however, the said writ petition remains pending with no directions. Therefore, the FIR appears to be an afterthought one, instituted with malicious intent, nearly six years after the retirement of petitioner No.1. 4.5. He further submitted that entire set of allegations are vague, baseless, and contrary to official records and audit reports. The delay in registration of the FIR, the lack of any specific role attributed to petitioner No.3, and prima facie there is no material against any of the petitioners. 4.6. He further submitted that the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in respect of the allegations of corruption and financial misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC . The allegations against petitioner No.1 including irregularities in standard operating procedures and financial mismanagement are contradicted by audit reports ratified by the Governing Council, which show no pending objections. The petitioners emphasize their willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The petitioners do not have any other criminal antecedents and their established reputations in the academic sector asserting that they are not flight risks. Therefore, requested the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.7. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab , [ 1980 (2) SCC 565 ] . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para No.36, that: “36. Therefore, requested the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.7. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab , [ 1980 (2) SCC 565 ] . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para No.36, that: “36. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the state" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, (MANU/SC/0139/1961) which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.” 5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent that the petitioners have committed grave offence. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the infrastructure of RCUES and used the same for developing his private firm in the Skyline Archon Private Limited, Hyderabad, and caused loss to an amount of Rs.1,45,38,702/- to RCUES and there are specific allegations against the petitioners that they have misappropriated huge amount of the Government and the investigation is at the threshold. The petitioners with criminal conspiracy and with an fraudulent and dishonest intention caused wrongful loss to the public exchequer to a tune of Rs.3 Crores and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. 5.1. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 in collusion with petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have committed financial and procedural irregularities during his tenure from 2016-2019 for construction of dining hall, four suits rooms, development activities, repairs, renovation of 19 hostel rooms and renovation of RCUES main building. The Anti-Corruption Bureau's investigation revealed that unauthorized construction and renovation projects, including a dining hall and hostel repairs, resulting in a loss of approximately Rs. 78.34 lakhs due to contracts awarded based on fake quotations. The accusation made against petitioner No.2 is that he embezzling over Rs.1.45 Crores by inflating project budgets and diverting resources to his private firm i.e., Skyline Archon Private Limited, while petitioner No.3 allegedly colluded in these activities. The F.I.R. was registered on 06.03.2025, cites violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC , including criminal conspiracy and cheating, supported by audit objections and documentation that highlight a lack of transparency and accountability in the procurement process, indicating that the petitioners misused their official positions for personal gain. Basing on the said allegations, the crime was registered for the aforesaid offences. 5.2. In State Rep. Basing on the said allegations, the crime was registered for the aforesaid offences. 5.2. In State Rep. by The C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma , [1997 (2) ALD (Crl.) 747] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted with caution, especially in serious corruption cases involving high-ranking officials. The custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigations, as it allows for the extraction of crucial information that may be concealed if a suspect is protected by anticipatory bail. It noted that the criteria for granting anticipatory bail differ from those for post-arrest bail, and concerns about witness tampering are valid given the respondent's influential position. The Court ultimately found that the High Court misdirected itself in granting anticipatory bail, leading to the reversal of that order. 5.3. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani and Ors. , (2023) 3 SCR 476 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para Nos.31 and 33, which reads as follows: “31. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, “Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an un measurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority.” Hence, the need to be extra conscious. 33. The contention that prior approval of investigation, as mandated under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been obtained and thus, the proceedings initiated against Respondent No. 1 stand vitiated, has no legal or factual basis. Section 17A merely contemplates that police officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority. Section 17A merely contemplates that police officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority. The first proviso to the section states that such approval is not necessary in cases involving arrest of the person on the spot on the charges of accepting undue advantage.” 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that during the tenure of petitioner No.1, who worked as a Professor in Public Administration Department and in- charge Director/Senior Consultant of RCUES, committed several irregularities from 2016-2019 in construction of dining hall, four suits rooms, development activities, repairs, renovation of 19 hostel rooms and renovation of RCUES main building and caused wrongful loss to the public exchequer to an amount of Rs.3 Crores. The record further reveals that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that as per the MoU between the Government of India, New Delhi and Osmania University, dated 31.05.1999, the RCUES has to follow the norms of the Osmania University in execution of the works. However, the petitioners along with other accused in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy and with an fraudulent intention did not utilized the services of Osmania University, R & B Department, CPWD or any other Regular Engineering Department to ensure proper technical check regarding quality control and features, accountability and responsibility for any deficiencies. 7. The record further reveals that there is a specific allegation against petitioner No.1 that he dishonestly and fraudulently mis- appropriated infrastructure of RCUES – OU and used the same for developing his private firm, namely, Skyline Archon Private Limited and thereby caused loss to a tune of Rs.1,45,38,702/-. Even according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the investigation is still initial stage and records relating to the constructions and projects are yet to be collected on examining the witnesses, who are acquainted with the facts of the case, is also pending. 8. Even according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the investigation is still initial stage and records relating to the constructions and projects are yet to be collected on examining the witnesses, who are acquainted with the facts of the case, is also pending. 8. It is already stated supra that there are specific allegations levelled against petitioner No.1, who conspired with other accused, and caused huge financial loss to the public exchequer to a tune of more than Rs.3 Crores, especially financial and procedural irregularities in construction of dining hall, four suits rooms, development activities, repairs, renovation of 19 hostel rooms and renovation of RCUES main building without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under MoU dated 31.05.1999. 9. In Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held at paragraph Nos.21, 23 and 24, which reads as follows: “21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution. 23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption.” 10. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above-mentioned judgment has dismissed the anticipatory bail to the petitioner, on the ground that the facts of the case did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in a corruption case. Notably, the Court referred to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, explaining that even the attempt or solicitation of a bribe falls within the ambit of the statutory prohibition. Similarly, the Court noted that Section 13 of the P.C. Act punishes “criminal misconduct” by habitual acceptance or solicitation of prohibited gratification. In light of the seriousness of the allegations, the anticipatory bail is typically unwarranted in corruption matters, unless it can be demonstrated that the accusations are frivolous, politically motivated, or manifestly false. The significance of this judgment is to safeguard the integrity of public office, which remains paramount. 11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence and also the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal supra this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, especially when the investigation is at the initial stage. 12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.