V. Bharath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

V. Bharath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (Accused No. 3 in Crime/FIR No. 40 of 2024, PS CID, Hyderabad) should be enlarged on pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest.

Court's answer

Though the petitioner contends he possesses a licence to run his firm, the prosecution's case is that the licence is a forged one; investigation is therefore required, and the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail.

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition seeking pre-arrest bail is accordingly dismissed; miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (Smt Justice K. Sujana), by order dated 07-03-2025, dismissed Criminal Petition No. 2361 of 2025 filed under Sections 437/438/439/482 Cr.P.C. by V. Bharath Kumar (Accused No. 3 in Crime No. 40 of 2024 of PS CID, TG, Hyderabad), Director of Egal Export Immigrations Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad, seeking pre-arrest bail. The FIR, arising from a complaint dated 07.03.2024, alleges a fake foreign-employment racket operated with A.1 and A.2 (firm 'Abroad Study Plan', Kukatpally), wherein victims were promised jobs at Malta, sent instead to Latvia without work, and money collected; offences charged include Sections 420, 370(3), 406, 409, 411, 419, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC and Section 24(1)(b)(g) of the Emigration Act, 1983. The petitioner's counsel argued no specific role was attributed to him, his name figured only via the statement of Lw.7 who had executed a visa-processing agreement with refund terms, and that he held a valid licence. The Additional Public Prosecutor countered that the petitioner was the prime accused running the recruitment racket with A.1 and A.2, collecting huge amounts and victims' original certificates through associates, that his licence was forged, and that custodial interrogation was necessary. Weighing these submissions, the Court observed that although the petitioner claimed a valid licence, the prosecution asserted it was forged and investigation was required; it therefore declined bail and dismissed the petition. The Court noted counsel's submission that other accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, but did not extend the same benefit to the petitioner.

[³³⁸⁵¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMSNAL PETITION NO: 2361 oF 2025

Between:

V. Bharath Kumar, S/o V.Jaya Kumar, Aged.42 years, Occ.Business, Director !!G!E lxpgrt^{lmmigrations, PvtLtd, R/o. H.No.1-1-5/12l1, Deepthi Apartments,} Flat No. Sl, Srteet No.10 West Maredpally, Secunderabad.

...PETtTtONERyACCUSED(S)

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad (PS ClD, TG, Hyderabad)

Sri. Gone Srinivas, S/o Narsaiah, Age.32, Occ.Carpenter, R/o, Dilwapur Village, Khanapur (M) Nirmal District.

... RE S PON DE NT/COM PI.AI NANTS

Petition under Section 437143814391482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Police to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 40 oI 2024, on the file of PS ClD, Hyderabad.

This Petition coming on for hearing ,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri KARAM CHANDU KOMIREDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1

The Court made the following: OROER

j

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJAITA

CRIMIITAL PETITIO If No.2361 ol 2O25

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 42O,37O (3), 406, 4O9, 411,419,467,471, 12O-B of Indian Pena.l Code ancl under Section 24 (1) (b) (g) of Emigration Act, 1983.

The case of the prosecution is that the dr:lacto complainant Iodged a report on 07.O3-2O24 before the policc stating that in the yeal. 2022 himself and another person were lurecl irrto :r foreign job at Malta, a lluropean Country Abroad Study Ptan, ol Kukatpall_y by Ghanta Anil and Ghanta Sunil (A. I and A.2). Thr:r' informcd them that the fee for each person is Rs.S lakhs and ttrev troth paicl Rs. I lakh each in cash ot 13.08.2022. As there rv:rs n() l)rogress, even after six months, they asked to repay their morrerr'. they dclayed and firnally in July, 2023 the accused called thc complainant and another person, and informed that they got iob i)pportunity in

2

i It I

Terrence Zemut Mckeon and asked the defacto complainalt and another for more money and they^paid Rs.l 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^{accusedtold the defacto} complainant and another Person that^{there werefewjobs at Malta} artd that tJ:e accused are^{proccssingfor LaMa Country, as such,} the defacto complainant and another^{went to LatviaCountry,but} they did not get any work and^{stayed there12 days without work.} When the defacto complainant and^{another asked GantaAnil} Kumar (A.1), he replied that they^{nced TRCCard for whichit will} take three months time and^{gave evasivereplies that it will take six} months for Malta and have^{to beartheirown expenses. Hence,} they returned to India and^{u'hen questionedthe accused, they} threatened them. Hence,^{requestedthe policc to take necessary} action against the accused.^{Basingon the said complaint,the} police registered the case against the^{accused for the above} o{fences.

3

3 Heard Sri Karam Chenriu Komireddw, learned corrnsel for the petitioner and learned Additional public prosecutor appearing fcr the responden t.

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 Lu,.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 pctitioner for processing VISA application, wherein there are clear terms :rnd conditions including payment of fees and refund of fee in thc evenl of VISA being denied. Learned counsel lurther contcndcd that petitioner is having valid licence to run his firm. Thc :rllc.gation of defacto complainant is that instead of sending ro Malt:r Countrv, he was sent to Latvia country, but therc is no cmplovment u hich itself shows that petitioner has already scnt the clclacto complainant to abroad. The allegations agaillst this

4

r-)

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.

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 [mmigration Consultancy, Secunderabad, he colluded with the accused firm "Abroad Study Plan Consultanq/ run by A. I and A.2 and in conspiracy with various agents who are mnning this racket of fake abroad emplolrment 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 hrm and the licence which he is possessing is a forgcd document. As there are serious allegations against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is very much necessary for invcstigation. As such, prayed to dismiss this petition.

5-

Considering the submissions made by^{both the counsel and} tl1e material on record, though^{petitioner'scontenLionis that he is} having licenct', the prosecution's case is^{that the sameis a forged} one. Theref<rre, investigation is required in^{this case. As such,} this Court is not inclined to^grant bail and^{the petition is liableto} be dismissed.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

MiscelLrneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed

\ \

To,

Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR

SECT FFICER ,*t

//TRUE COPY//

1 . The Station^{House Officer Police StationClD, Hyderabad}

Two CC to^{PUBLICPROSECUTORHigh Court of Telangana ,Hyderabad} lourl

a. bne bc to SRI^{KARAM CHANDUKoMIREDDYAdvocate[oPUC]} 4. Two CD CoDies

PSL

I

HIGHCOURT

DATED:0710312025

l

ORDER

CRLP.No.2361 ot 2025

(_) ?02s
't 1$ J\JL 5)
* J; l'.'
i; --,'.'-''..-il').i//
'-.---;2"'

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

al
6t6