Telangana High Court
Aryan Singh Chabbra vs The State Of Telangana on 30 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6349, 6354, 6357 and 6391 of 2025
% Dated 30.06.2025
# Aryan Singh Chabbra S/o.Harpreet Singh,
Aged about 39 years, R/o.Plot No.40 and 41,
Flat No. 004, MLA Colony, Lotus Pond,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034
....Petitioner/accused
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana
Hyderabad and another.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents :Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon (R.1)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2025 SCC OnLine 1157
2. (2017) 5 SCC 406
3. 2019 (9) SCC 24
4. 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 676
5. (2005) 4 SCC 303
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6349, 6354, 6357 and 6391 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by the
petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest.
1.1. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime Nos.10 and 12 of 2025,
accused No.2 in Crime No.11 of 2025 and accused in Crime No.215 of
2025. The de facto complainants have filed various complaints with
similar allegations against the petitioner and other accused before the
Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Station, Cyberabad, and the
said complaints were registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Section 5 of Telangana State Protection of
Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short
‘TSPDFEA’). Hence, all four criminal petitions are heard together and
the same are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the facility of reference, the facts in Crl.P.No.6354 of 2025 is
being referred to.
Brief facts of the case:
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that the de facto
complainants have lodged a written complaint to the Deputy
3
Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad, on
11.02.2025, stating that M/s Capital Protection Force Private Limited
(Falcon) is engaged in Invoice discounting and functioning from 4th
floor, Office No.405, HUDA Techo Enclave, High Tech City,
Hyderabad, since 2015 onwards. Invoice Discounting is a financial
service in which, company can raise funds by selling their invoices to
third party financial institutions at a discount rate. The company
offered the opportunity to deposit in Falcon under the pretext of
providing funds for invoice discounting. The deposit was structured
with the promise of returns basis on the invoices they discounted,
with clear agreements that specified maturity dates for repayment,
including interest.
3.1. It is further averred that there are different invoice plans such
are 1) 45 days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 11%-12%, 2) 90
days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 16%-18% and 3) 180
days or more days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 20%-
21.95%. The company is having bank account No.111405002867 of
ICICI Bank, Gachibowli Branch and Escrow Account
No.777705844888 in the same bank. The depositors have to transfer
their deposit amount to the said account through online. The deposit
range is from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5 Crores.
4
3.2. It is also stated that the de-facto complainant had deposited an
amount of Rs.3.83 Crores by transferring from his account
No.007101508028 of ICICI Bank. The other depositors namely 1)
Vandana Soni has deposited an amount of Rs.2.36 Crs. by
transferring from her account No.3111718567 Kokak Bank, 2) Silpa
Pappagari has deposited Rs.64,25,000/-, by transferring from her
account No.124710100007143 Union Bank, 3) Daina Nazerath has
deposited Rs.1.27 Crores from her account No.346501500043 ICICI
Bank, 4) Dr.Sarvana has deposited Rs.2.55 Crores in the name of his
mother namely Rajamani Palanippan and transferred from his
account No.50100639388449 HDFC, Kethakkam Branch, Chennai.
Thus, the total deposit amount comes to Rs.9,38,25,000/-.
3.3. It is also averred that they have received monthly returns till
17.01.2025 and thereafter, no payment is received from the company.
When the de-facto complainant and others visited the office of M/s.
Capital Protection Force Private Limited, they found that the office is
closed and nobody is lifting their phone calls and they came to know
that the management of Falcon cheated the depositors and
misappropriated their funds and caused wrongful loss to them. Hence
the de-facto complainant requested to take necessary legal action
against the accused persons namely Amardeep Kumar & Others.
Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.10 of 2025 was
5
registered against the petitioner and other accused for the said
offences.
4. Heard Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mrs. Kathyaeni Ramshetty, learned counsel for respondent
No.2/de facto complainant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State.
Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated
in the present crime as accused basing upon the confessional
statement given by the other accused. The petitioner is Consultant of
accused No.1 company and he is not having any role on the affairs of
the said company. The petitioner himself invested an amount of
Rs.1.35 Crores in accused No.1 company between 2017 to 2022 and
the said amount is still lying with the company and the petitioner falls
within the definition of victim but not as an accused. As per the
Purchaser Services Agreement, the investors have invested the
amount and they are entitled for reverse discounting fee and the said
transaction would not attract Section 5 of the Act, especially the
victims/de facto complainants have not deposited any amount and
the same does not fall within the ambit of deposit as envisaged under
6
the Section 2(b) of the Act. Even according to the allegations made in
the complaint, the victims have invested the amounts in accused No.1
company.
5.1. He also submitted that the petitioner has received the amount
from accused No.1 company towards interest portion and Rs.65,000/-
per month towards consultation charges to his account and he has
not received any other amounts from accused No.1 company as
alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is also a victim in the
hands of accused No.1 company like respondent No.2 and other
victims. Accused No.1 company did not divert any amounts of the
victims or respondent No.2 to the account of the petitioner.
5.2. He further submitted that even according to the documents
relied upon by the prosecution, especially the income tax returns of
accused No.1 company shows that accused No.1 company has
transferred amounts in the name of Aryan Singh, who is none other
than the son of accused No.2, who is a minor, however, the
prosecution without properly verifying the said documents and
without examining the same alleging that the said amounts were
transferred to the petitioner’s account merely because the petitioner
name is also Aryan Singh.
5.3. He further submitted that even according to the documents,
which are relied upon by the prosecution, it reveals that an amount of
7
Rs.1,500,000/- transferred from the account of the petitioner into
accused No.1 company on 10.01.2018 and Rs.1,000,000/- on
14.02.2018. The above said documents clearly reveal that the
petitioner had invested the amounts in accused No.1 company and
the petitioner is also victim. He further submitted that the petitioner
is not having any criminal antecedents and he is suffering with
several ailments. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with
the investigation and also abide by the conditions, which are going to
be imposed by this Court.
5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Krishnamohan Reddy vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh 1;
Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor :
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the petitioner/accused No.5 is not a Consultant and he is Chief
Operational Officer (COO) of the Falcon Invoice Discounting and he
looked after the entire affairs of Falcon and he is responsible for
overseeing the operations of accused No.1 company and procedures of
the Falcon Invoice Discounting. He is in a responsible position for
implementation of the strategic plan of the company Falcon Invoice
Discounting.
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157
8
6.1. He further submitted that the petitioner has not invested any
amount in accused No.1 company. Accused No.1 company
transferred an amount of Rs.1,62,55,619/- and an amount of
Rs.1,86,80,705/- into the account of the petitioner. The petitioner
collected a huge amount of Rs.14.35 Crores as deposits from the
victims on behalf of ‘Falcon’ and out of the said amount, he
transferred amounts to accused No.1 company and in turn, accused
No.1 company returned amounts into the account of the petitioner.
6.2. He also submitted that the petitioner has not invested any
amount as alleged in the petition either Rs.2.95 Crores or Rs.1.35
Crores, as pleaded in the main criminal petition or in the additional
grounds. He further submitted that the petitioner and other accused
have collected huge amount from the victims in the name of accused
No.1 company. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
37 witnesses/victims only and in their statements, they specifically
mentioned that deposited an amount of Rs.30,73,99,047/-.
6.3. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer during the
course of investigation they revealed that the petitioner and other
accused have collected huge deposits from 7,560 depositors from all
over the country to a tune of Rs.4215 Crores, out of the said amount,
they have diverted an amount of Rs.792 Crores to accused Nos.2 to
24 and their shell companies and accused No.1 company has failed to
9
return the amounts i.e., principal and interests, to the victims since
January, 2025, and the accused persons along with the petitioner are
absconding. He also submitted that the petitioner has committed
serious offence and there is serious impact on the society. The
investigation is under progress.
6.4. He also submitted that as per the provisions of Section 2(b) of
the Act, the amounts which were collected by the petitioner and other
accused from the victims/customers in the name of accused No.1
agreeing to pay the said amount with interest comes within the ambit
of deposit. Hence, the ingredients under Section 5 of the Act are
specifically applicable to the present case.
6.5. He further submitted that accused Nos.4, 8, 10, 11 and 18 have
approached this Court and filed Crl.P.Nos.3521 and 3620 of 2025
seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2025
on the file of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Station
Cyberabad, and the same was dismissed on 26.03.2025. He also
submitted that accused No.17 in Crime No.10 of 2025 and 11 of 2025
have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.3637 of 2025 and 3640
of 2025 for grant of anticipatory bail and the said criminal petitions
were dismissed by this Court on 28.03.2025. Similarly, accused No.7
in Crime No.10 of 2025 has approached this Court and filed
Crl.P.No.3940 of 2025 seeking for grant of regular bail and this Court
10
dismissed the same on 02.04.2025. The grounds which are raised by
the petitioner in the present case are also similar in nature and the
investigation is under progress and the prime accused are
absconding. The petitioner has played a key role in accused No.1
company and he also one of the prime accused in the crimes and
there are specific and serious allegations are levelled against him and
huge amount belonging to the innocent victims were transferred and
diverted from accused No.1 company to the account of the petitioner
and other accused and to their shell companies and misappropriated
the same. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail and these criminal petitions are liable to be
dismissed.
6.6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Virupakshappa gouda and another v. State
of Karnataka and another 2.
Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 :
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the
petitioner is Chief Operational Officer (COO) of accused No.1 company
and he is managing the company day-to-day business operations,
strategic planning, implementation, financial management – financial
operations, budgeting, policy development & implementation,
2
(2017) 5 SCC 406
11
customer experience, talent acquisition and employee management
etc., and he is having important role in the said company. The
petitioner alleged in the main criminal petition that he invested an
amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/- in accused No.1 company, whereas in the
additional grounds, it was alleged that he invested an amount of
Rs.1.35 Crores between 2017 to 2022, though he has not invested
any amount in accused No.1 company, on the other hand, the
petitioner and other accused have misappropriated huge amount
deposited by the depositors/victims and diverted the amounts to their
personal accounts as well as their shell companies.
7.1. Learned counsel further submitted that accused No.1 has paid
the principal amount and interest to the depositors only up to
January, 2025 and thereafter, they stopped the payment to the
victims/depositors. She also submitted that as per the agreement,
there was maturity date and also repayment date, which evidently
proves that the amounts given by the victims fall under the ambit of
‘deposit’. Hence, the offence under Section 5 of the Act is very much
attracted against the petitioner.
7.2. Learned counsel also submitted that accused No.1 company
was not registered with the Registrar of Companies for taking
business activity of invoice discounting, however, accused No.1
company had lured thousands of investors across the country to
12
invest into the Ponzi scheme through attractive interest rates and
further submitted that the petitioner and other accused have
methodically devised a plan to make the investors believe in their
Ponzi scheme by making use the names of the world’s most renowned
companies, such as, Amazon, Flipkart, Addidas, Goderj, etc., to name
a few and declared ‘deals’ for instruments into invoice discounting
with these companies. Falcon had developed in application through
which investors were instructed to register, make their payments,
receive their payment receipt and agreement copies and make it look
absolutely genuine. The petitioner is having key role in accused No.1
company and he did day-to-day business management and
operations, financial management etc., and he is the key conspirator
in the crime.
7.3. Learned counsel further submitted that one of the victims sent
mail to Dabur Cares and TATA 1 MG to ascertain the affairs of
accused No.1 in turn they sent reply mail to the victims on
11.05.2025, wherein they specifically stated that they are not having
any association or affiliation with Falcon Group and they were not
parties to any of the agreements and have no involvement whatsoever
in the Falcon and they have not given authorization to use of its name
and trademark by Falcon in any manner and any deposit done by the
victim with Falcon was at their own risk and subject to the agreement
13
between the victim and Falcon. She further submitted that accused
No.1 is Director and Shareholder in 14 companies in India, 4
companies at abroad and the petitioner and other accused diverted
the huge amount into their accounts and their shell companies. The
petitioner is also having important role in ‘VIRGO HOLDING’, which is
a shell company of accused No.4.
7.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not a
victim and he never deposited any such amount in accused No.1
company and has not filed any piece of evidence to establish that he
invested the amount. She further submitted that the Bank statement
relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is pertaining
to Kotak Mahindra Bank and the above said account was closed long
back and the petitioner is opening a Bank account No.
900001502727, which is active from 01.01.2018 to 10.06.2025, which
clearly reveals that several amounts were transferred from Falcon into
the account of the petitioner.
7.5. The petitioner is COO of accused No.1 company and to support
her contention, she relied upon the document, i.e., Strategic
Investment Proposal, which is filed along with the counter dated
09.06.2025, wherein the petitioner was shown as authorized signatory
and COO of accused No.1 company and signed on the said document.
Hence, the contention raised by learned Senior Counsel for the
14
petitioner that the petitioner is only consultant to accused No.1
company is not true and correct. She further submitted that the
petitioner himself in his website specifically mentioned that he is the
COO of accused No.1 company. She further submitted that accused
No.20 in her statement specifically deposed the role of the petitioner.
7.6. Learned counsel further submitted that accused No.1 company
has violated Factoring Regulation Act, 2011, Payment and Settlement
System Act, 2017, Income Tax Act and GST Act. The petitioner and
other accused have played fraud upon innocent 7056 depositors from
all over the country and they have collected huge amount more than
Rs.4,215 Crores from the victims and out of which, Rs.792 Crores
were diverted into the account of accused Nos.2 to 24 and their shell
companies. Hence, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he
will interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses and
he is a flight risk and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also
required for conducting investigation. Hence, the petitioner is not
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and the criminal petitions are
liable to be dismissed.
7.7. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following
judgments:
1. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement 3; and
3
2019 (9) SCC 24
15
2. Suman Chattopadhyay v. Republic of India 4
Reply submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner :
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by way of reply
submitted that the judgments which are relied upon by the learned
counsel for respondent No.2 are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case on the ground that the above said
judgments arise under PMLA Act and as per the provisions of Section
45 of the PMLA Act, there is a specific bar to grant anticipatory bail in
favour of the accused, whereas, the present crime was registered for
the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and
Section 5 of TSPDFEA. The parameters for deciding anticipatory bail
application in respect of BNS offences and PMLA offences are different
and distinctive.
Analysis :
9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals
that basing upon the complaint lodged by the de facto complainants,
Crime Nos.10, 11, 12 and 215 of 2025 were registered for the offences
under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 5 of
‘TSPDFEA’. In Crime No.10 of 2025, the de facto complainants
specifically stated that an amount of Rs.9.38,25,000/- has been
4
2021 SCC OnLine Ori 676
16deposited by them in accused No.1 company. In Crime No.11 of
2025, the de facto complainants stated that an amount of Rs.58.5
lakhs has been deposited by them in accused No.1 company. In
Crime No.12 of 2025, the de facto complainant stated that an amount
of Rs.4,49,68,955/- has been deposited by her in accused No.1
company. In Crime No.215 of 2025, the de facto complainant
specifically stated that an amount of Rs.1,27,60,000/- has been
deposited by her in accused No.1 company. In the above said crimes,
the de facto complainants have specifically stated that accused No.1
Company operating the affairs under the name and style of M/s.
Capital Protection Force Private Limited (Falcon) since 2015. The said
Company is engaged in Invoice Discounting. The Invoice Discounting
is a financial service, wherein the companies raise funds by selling
their invoices to a third party financial institution at a discounted
rate. The company offering invoice discounting typically agrees to buy
the invoices and provides immediate payment, minus a discount fee.
As per the Invoice Discounting Plans, basing on the agreement, the
interest rate is 11% – 12% p.a. for 45-Days; 16% – 18% p.a. for 90
days; and 20% – 21.95% p.a. for 180 or more days.
10. The de facto complainants further stated that they have
received their monthly returns up to 17.01.2025 only, and their
deposits amount maturity was due on multiple dates throughout the
17
year 2025. Even after completion of maturity period, accused No.1
company had not returned the monthly returns along with capital
amount to their respective accounts and there is no response from
accused No.1 company as well as from the petitioner and other
accused and when they enquired about affairs of the company,
accused No.1 office was closed and the petitioner and other accused
were switched off their mobile phones. Immediately de facto
complainants have lodged the complaints and basing on the same, the
above said crimes were registered.
11. The specific case of the prosecution is that during the course of
investigation, investigation agency found that under the guise of
Invoice Discounting in the name of Falcon, the accused persons have
collected huge amount of Rs.4,215 Crores from 7,560 deposits all over
India and accused No.1 company diverted an amount of Rs.792
Crores to the account of accused Nos.2 to 24 and their shell
companies and also misappropriated the amounts of the victims.
12. The specific case of the prosecution as well as unofficial
respondent that the petitioner is having major role in accused No.1
company and he is Chief Operating Officer (COO) and he is managing
day-to-day affairs of the company including business operations,
strategic planning, implementation, financial management-financial
operations, budgeting, policy development and implementation,
18
customer experience, talent acquisition and employee management
etc. In support of their contention, they relied upon the document
namely ‘Strategic Investment Proposal’, which was filed along with the
counter affidavit. The said document clearly reveals that the
petitioner has signed as C.O.O. of Falcon group as authorized
signatory. Similarly, other documents also reveal that the petitioner
himself in his website specifically mentioned that he is the C.O.O. of
accused No.1 company. Whether the petitioner has discharged his
duties as C.O.O. or only as Consultant of accused No.1 company will
come into light after full fledged investigation or during the course of
trial.
13. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner himself deposited an amount of
Rs.1.35 crores in accused No.1 company, similar to the other
depositors, and the petitioner is a victim in the hands of accused No.1
company, is concerned, the specific case of prosecution is that the
petitioner had collected huge amount of Rs.14.35 crores from 17
victims on behalf of Falcon and out of the said amount, he transferred
some amounts to accused No.1 company and in turn accused No.1
company returned the amounts into the account of the petitioner and
the petitioner did not deposit any amount in the account No.1
company. Whether the petitioner deposited his own amount of
19
Rs.1.35 crores in accused No.1 company or he had collected the
amount of Rs.14.35 crores from the victims or he transferred the
amounts to the accused No.1 company and in turn he received the
amounts from the accused No.1 company, these aspects will also
come into light during the course of investigation.
14. The record further reveals that there are specific allegations
against the petitioner that he and other accused have received the
huge amounts from the victims under the scheme of Invoice
Discounting and returned the interest as well as principal amount
upon maturity to the victims up to January, 2025 only. Thereafter,
the petitioner and other accused have failed to remit the interest and
the principal amount to the victims. The specific case of the
prosecution is that accused No.1 company diverted the amounts
belonging to the victims into the accounts of accused Nos.2 to 24 and
their shell companies and misappropriated their amounts. The record
reveals that in the agreement there are specific clauses incorporated,
such as, maturity date, repayment date, and period of deposit and
rate of interest payable to the depositors/victims along with principal
amounts. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the
amounts which were received by from the victims under the guise of
the scheme ‘Falcon’ comes within the meaning of deposit as envisaged
20
under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 5
of the Act is applicable.
15. Insofar as other contention raised by the learned Senior
Counsel that the petitioner is not arrayed as accused in Crime No.215
of 2025 and the Investigating Officers are taking coercive steps
against the petitioner is concerned, the record reveals that the
petitioner is an accused in Crime Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2025, wherein
there are specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner and
other accused regarding diversion and misappropriation of huge
amount of Rs.4,215 Crores, which was collected from the victims
under the name and style of Falcon. In Crime No. 215 of 2025 also,
very same allegations are levelled against accused No.1 company and
the investigation is under progress.
16. In respect of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that accused No.1 company is not registered with the
Registrar of Companies and lured thousands of depositors in their
scheme by making them to believe in their Ponzi scheme by using the
names of the world’s most renowned companies, such as, Amazon,
Flipkart, Adidas, Godrej, etc. to name a few and declared ‘deals’ for
instruments into invoice discounting with these companies, though
there is no privity of contract between the said companies with
accused No.1 company and accused No.1 company has violated
21
Factoring Regulation Act, 2011, Payment and Settlement System Act,
2017, Income Tax Act and GST Act, are concerned, the said aspects
also will come into light during the course of investigation only,
especially when the investigation is under progress.
17. In P. Krishna Mohan Reddy supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that the legal inadmissibility of confessions and statements made
by an accused, particularly in relation to Sections 24 to 30 of the
Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of the CrPC. The Court held that
any confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section
25, even if voluntary, and if made while in custody, it is inadmissible
unless recorded before a magistrate as per Section 26. Section 27
carves out a narrow exception, allowing only that portion of the
statement that leads to the discovery of a fact to be admissible, and
only against the maker. Under Section 30, a confession implicating a
co-accused can be used only if both accused are being jointly tried for
the same offence, the confession implicates both parties, and is duly
proved in court–conditions not fulfilled at the anticipatory or regular
bail stage. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from
accused persons, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, cannot be used
to implicate co-accused as such statements are not made under oath,
are not subject to cross-examination, and are hit by the bar of Section
162 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that even if a confession appears
22
reliable, it cannot be used at the bail stage unless it has been tested
during trial and meets all evidentiary requirements. The judgment
underscores the principle that statements or confessions by an
accused cannot be used to prejudice the case of a co-accused unless
proven in a joint trial under strict legal safeguards, ensuring the
protection of fair trial rights.
18. The above said judgment relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand on the ground that there are
specific and serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner that
the petitioner himself has collected huge amount of Rs.14.35 Crores
from the victims on behalf of Falcon and out of the said amount, he
transferred some amounts to accused No.1 company and in turn
accused No.1 returned the amounts into the account of the petitioner.
Similarly, accused No.1 company collected huge amount of Rs.4215
crores and diverted huge amounts into the accounts of accused Nos.2
to 24 and their shell companies.
19. In V. Vijay Sai Reddy supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that while deciding bail applications, courts must consider various
factors such as the nature and seriousness of the accusation, the
strength of the supporting evidence, the severity of the potential
punishment, the character and circumstances of the accused, the
23
likelihood of the accused appearing for trial, and any risk of witness
tampering. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, the
requirement is only to assess whether there are reasonable grounds to
believe in the existence of a case against the accused and not to
demand evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This
reflects the legislative intent to permit bail based on a evaluation,
rather than a detailed assessment of guilt.
20. In P. Chidambaram supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
that for grant of anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving
economic offences like money laundering, reiterated that such relief
should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It
emphasized that custodial interrogation is often essential during
investigation, as it can lead to discovery of concealed material and
crucial information, which might be obstructed if the accused is
protected by pre-arrest bail. Referring to State v. Anil Sharma, the
Court noted that interrogation under bail protection becomes a mere
formality, while custodial questioning is more effective. In cases
involving economic offences, the Court highlighted their seriousness
and complexity, observing that such crimes are committed with
deliberate design, harming the economy and public interest.
Economic offences were described as a class apart, requiring a
different approach to bail. It relied on precedents like Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy v. CBI and Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar
24
Jain, stressing that personal liberty must be balanced against the
need for effective investigation, especially where cross-border money
trails and multiple stages of laundering are involved. In the specific
case discussed (related to P. Chidambaram), the Court found that the
stage of investigation, nature of allegations, and materials collected
including international inputs justified denial of anticipatory bail. It
concluded that granting such relief would hamper investigation, and
that Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be invoked only when the allegations
appear frivolous or groundless, which was not the case here.
21. The aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 is pertaining to the offence registered under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PML Act). As
per Section 45 of the PML Act, there is a specific bar for granting
anticipatory bail, whereas in the case on hand, the crimes were
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2)
and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 5 of TSPDFEA.
22. It is relevant to place on record that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal 5, wherein it was held
that in a series of decisions culminating in the rejection of
anticipatory bail for P. Chidambaram, reiterated that economic
offences like money laundering require a different legal approach,
5
(2005) 4 SCC 303
25
given their complex, calculated, and far-reaching impact on the
national economy. Custodial interrogation was held to be not only
legally permissible but often necessary to uncover deep-rooted
conspiracies, especially when the accused may possess critical
information hidden behind layers of financial transactions. The Court
emphasized that Section 438 CrPC, which governs anticipatory bail, is
an extraordinary remedy and must be exercised sparingly, only when
accusations appear manifestly false or frivolous. Pre-arrest bail, if
granted routinely, would frustrate investigation and defeat the
purpose of uncovering concealed evidence, especially when
international links and complex layering of funds are involved. Thus,
in cases involving serious allegations of economic offences,
anticipatory bail should be denied to enable effective and meaningful
investigation.
23. In Serious Fraud Investigation Office supra, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that:
18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this Court has
consistently emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a
matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large
scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes.
23. In view of the above settled legal position, it is no more res integra that
economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep rooted
conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore such offences
need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as grave and serious
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing
26serious threats to the financial health of the country. The law aids only the
abiding and certainly not its resistants. When after the investigation, a
chargesheet is submitted in the court, or in a complaint case, summons or
warrant is issued to the accused, he is bound to submit himself to the
authority of law. If he is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or
is concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he must
not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the Court
taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious economic
offences or heinous offences. In such cases when the court has reason to
believe that the person against whom the warrant has been issued has
absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant could not be executed, the
concerned court would be perfectly justified in initiating the proclamation
proceedings against him under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The High Courts should
also consider the factum of issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation
of proclamation proceedings seriously and not casually, while considering
the anticipatory bail application of such accused.
27. In none of the impugned orders, the High Court has bothered to look into
the proceedings conducted, and the detailed orders passed by the Special
Court for securing the presence of the Respondents – Accused. It cannot be
gainsaid that the judicial time of every court, even of Magistrate’s Court is as
precious and valuable as that of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The
accused are duty bound to cooperate the trial courts in proceeding further
with the cases and bound to remain present in the Court as and when required
by the Court. Not allowing the Courts to proceed further with the cases by
avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders of the
Court, and trying to delay the proceedings by hook or crook, would certainly
amount to interfering with and causing obstruction in the administration of
justice. As held in Srikant Page 50 of 55 SLP (CRL.) No.13956 of 2023
Upadhay’s case (supra), when warrant of arrest is issued or proclamation
proceedings are initiated, the accused would not be entitled to invoke, except
in exceptional cases, the extraordinary power of the court to grant
anticipatory bail. Granting anticipatory bail is certainly not the rule. The
respondents/ accused, who have continuously avoided to follow the due
process of law, by avoiding attendance in the Court, by concealing
27themselves and thereby attempting to derail the proceedings, would not be
entitled to the anticipatory bail. If the Rule of Law is to prevail in the society,
every person would have to abide by the law, respect the law and follow the
due process of law.
24. In above said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
emphasized on the aspect that anticipatory bail should not be granted
routinely, particularly in serious economic offences involving large-
scale fraud, public money, or complex financial crimes. Such offences
are distinct and grave, posing serious threats to the country’s
economy and financial stability. When an accused evades the legal
process by avoiding summons or warrants, concealing themselves, or
otherwise obstructing the judicial proceedings, they demonstrate a
clear disregard for the rule of law. In such circumstances, especially
when non-bailable warrants have been issued or proclamation
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated, the courts
should take a strict view and generally deny anticipatory bail.
Granting such relief to individuals who willfully avoid the legal
process undermines the administration of justice and delays legal
proceedings. Therefore, except in exceptional cases, those who
attempt to derail the process should not be granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
25. In the case on hand, there are serious and specific allegations
levelled against the petitioner and other accused that they have
28
collected huge amounts of Rs.4,215 crores from 7,516 deposits across
the India under the scheme ‘Invoice Discounting’ by Falcon and out of
the said amount, accused No.1 company has diverted an amount of
Rs.792 Crores into the accounts of accused Nos.2 to 24 and their
shell companies. The specific allegations levelled against the
petitioner are that he has collected Rs.14.35 Crores from 17
depositors and transferred it to accused No.1 company and in turn,
accused No.1 company has transferred some amounts to the
petitioner’s account and misappropriated the funds of the innocent
depositors/victims.
26. It is also relevant to mention that accused Nos.4, 8, 10, 11 and
18 have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.Nos.3521 and 3620 of
2025 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime Nos.10, 11 and 12 of
2025 on the file of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Station
Cyberabad, and the same was dismissed on 26.03.2025. Further,
accused Nos.17 and 7 in Crime No.10 of 2025 have approached this
Court and filed Crl.P.Nos.3637 and 3940 of 2025 for grant of
anticipatory bail and the said criminal petitions were dismissed on
28.03.2025 and 02.04.2025 respectively, and accused No.17 in Crime
No.11 of 2025 has filed Crl.P.No.3640 of 2025 for grant of anticipatory
bail and the same was dismissed on 28.03.2025.
29
27. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, gravity and seriousness of the offences and also the principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned supra, this Court
is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the above
said crimes, especially when the investigation is under progress.
28. Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:30 .06.2025
L.R. Copy to be marked.
mar/pgp