E. K. GIRISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to grant bail to the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 in Crime No.113/2018 of Cybercrime Police Station, Rachakonda, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B of I.P.C r/w Section 66-C, 66-D of Income Tax Act and Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act,1999 and Sections 4 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the material available on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 would submit that though the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 were illegally taken into custody by the police on 20.12.2018, the date of arrest was shown as 23.12.2018. The de-facto complainant made all baseless allegations. The complaint dated 28.11.2018 lodged by the de-facto complainant is an exaggeration where many manipulations are inserted and is also a misleading one. The petitioner No.1/A.1 is a spiritual guru and the petitioner No.2/A.2 is his brother and both of them are reputed and respectful persons. Their image is being tarnished by making false allegations against them. The allegation that the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 had induced the de-facto complainant for investment in social business network on 26.07.2017 and collected money of Rs.21,78,000/- is absolutely false. Though the de-facto complainant named Smt.Ratna Saroja in her complaint, she was not made accused in this case. The first information report as well as the remand report of the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 is silent with regard to the role of Ratna Saroja. It is absolutely false to say that the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 invested money in Bitcoin and crypto currency. Several business units/companies are being run by the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 and there are several investments. None was lured or any false promise was made as alleged. All the activities of the petitioners//A.1 & A.2 are legal activities and they did not indulge in any unlawful collection of money or establishment of any bogus companies. It is also false that the petitioner No.1/A.1 had threatened or intimidated the de-facto complainant. The police having taken custody thoroughly interrogated the petitioners/A.1 & A.2. All the material witnesses were examined and most part of the investigation is completed. The allegations against the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 are based on surmises and conjunctures and are vague and improbable and made with an intent to cause prejudice in the administration of justice. No offence was committed by the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 under the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of Money Circulation Act and the respondent invoked these provisions in pre-meditated manner. The petitioners/A.1 & A.2 were detained in illegal custody and remanded on baseless allegations, and ultimately prayed to allow the petition.