Telangana High Court
V. Bharath Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 7 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2361 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner for grant of
pre-arrest bail. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.40 of
2024 of CID Police Station, TG, Hyderabad. The offences registered
against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 370 (3), 406, 409,
411, 419, 467, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and under Section
24 (1) (b) (g) of Emigration Act, 1983.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
lodged a report on 07.03.2024 before the police stating that in the
year 2022 himself and another person were lured into a foreign job
at Malta, a European Country Abroad Study Plan, of Kukatpally by
Ghanta Anil and Ghanta Sunil (A.1 and A.2). They informed them
that the fee for each person is Rs.5 lakhs and they both paid Rs.1
lakh each in cash on 13.08.2022. As there was no progress, even
after six months, they asked to repay their money, they delayed
and finally in July, 2023 the accused called the complainant and
another person, and informed that they got job opportunity in
-2-
Terrence Zemut Mckeon and asked the defacto complainant and
another for more money and they paid Rs.1 lakh each and to pay
the remaining amount after receiving the original documents,
accordingly, they paid Rs. 5 lakhs by 25.09.2023 in several
instalments. On 08.10.2023 the accused told the defacto
complainant and another person that there were few jobs at Malta
and that the accused are processing for Latvia Country, as such,
the defacto complainant and another went to Latvia Country, but
they did not get any work and stayed there 12 days without work.
When the defacto complainant and another asked Ganta Anil
Kumar (A.1), he replied that they need TRC Card for which it will
take three months time and gave evasive replies that it will take six
months for Malta and have to bear their own expenses. Hence,
they returned to India and when questioned the accused, they
threatened them. Hence, requested the police to take necessary
action against the accused. Basing on the said complaint, the
police registered the case against the accused for the above
offences.
-3-
3. Heard Sri Karam Chendu Komireddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the allegations are not against the petitioner herein. The name of
this petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. There is no whisper
about the involvement of this petitioner in the FIR or in the
complaint and only basing on the statement of Lw.7 his name was
mentioned in the remand case diary. He further contended that no
specific role is attributed to the petitioner herein and he is falsely
implicated in this case. Lw.7 on whose statement the petitioner
herein was shown as accused, had executed an agreement with the
petitioner for processing VISA application, wherein there are clear
terms and conditions including payment of fees and refund of fee
in the event of VISA being denied. Learned counsel further
contended that petitioner is having valid licence to run his firm.
The allegation of defacto complainant is that instead of sending to
Malta Country, he was sent to Latvia country, but there is no
employment which itself shows that petitioner has already sent the
defacto complainant to abroad. The allegations against this
-4-
petitioner are false. The other accused in this case are already
granted anticipatory bail. As such, prayed to grant pre-arrest
bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed
counter opposing bail stating that this petitioner is the prime
accused who is running Eegal Export Immigration Consultancy,
Secunderabad, he colluded with the accused firm “Abroad Study
Plan Consultancy” run by A.1 and A.2 and in conspiracy with
various agents who are running this racket of fake abroad
employment recruitment with forged documents and collecting
huge amounts from the victims. Apart from collecting amounts,
this petitioner also collected original certificates of innocent victims
through their associates and threatened them not to report to
police. Petitioner is not having any licence to run his firm and the
licence which he is possessing is a forged document. As there are
serious allegations against the petitioner, his custodial
interrogation is very much necessary for investigation. As such,
prayed to dismiss this petition.
-5-
6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and
the material on record, though petitioner’s contention is that he is
having licence, the prosecution’s case is that the same is a forged
one. Therefore, investigation is required in this case. As such,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail and the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :07.03.2025
Rds