IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 13602 OF 2026

(CNR No. HBHC010572872026)

DATE: 09.09.2026

Between :

Mr. Lavleen Goel

… Petitioner/Accused No. 9

AND

The State of Telangana, Through P.S. EOW, Team-I, CCS,

Detective Department, Hyderabad, Represented by the learned

Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana,

Hyderabad.

… Respondent.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of

anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No 9 in Crime No. 294 of 2026 of

Kachiguda Police Station, which was subsequently transferred and

reregistered as Crime No. 121 of 2026 of P.S. EOW, Team-I, CCS,

Detective Department, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under

Sections 318(4), 316(2) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

2

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), Sections 3 and 5 of the Telangana State

Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (TSPDFE

Act), Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation

Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (PC & MCSB Act), Section 66(D) of the

Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. Heard Mr. Rajender Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing

the respondent-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant was

allegedly induced, through Zoom presentations and WhatsApp

communications, to join a money-circulation/luxury-product business

operated under the name and style of M/s. Indi Konnect Ventures Private

Limited (IGNITE). It is alleged that the business model involved the purchase

of products and enrolment of members in a binary/pyramid structure, with

promises of high financial returns and commissions. The company was

allegedly projected as being connected with an international entity, so as to

create an impression of corporate legitimacy and credibility. It is further

alleged that, pursuant to such representations, the de facto complainant was

induced to purchase an 18 K gold pendant and was instructed to make the

requisite payment by way of Demand Drafts. Accordingly, she obtained

Demand Drafts for a sum of Rs.59,175/- and Rs.2,623/-, totalling Rs.61,798/.

The complainant was allegedly instructed to send the Demand Drafts by

3

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

courier to a paying guest (PG) accommodation in Bengaluru, rather than to

the stated office address of the company. On the basis of the complaint

lodged in this regard, the crime was registered.

4.2. During the course of investigation, the prosecution alleges that

Accused Nos.3 to 8, in conspiracy with one another, collected amounts from

several victims by promising them high returns through the business

operated under the name and style of IGNITE and M/s. Indi Konnect

Ventures Private Limited. The investigating agency collected the

complainant’s bank-account details, Demand Drafts, WhatsApp

communications and other relevant documents. It is further stated that 12

bank accounts allegedly connected with the accused were identified and

frozen for the purpose of tracing the flow and alleged diversion of funds.

4.3. The statements of Accused Nos.7 and 8 are relied upon by the

prosecution to allege that they incorporated M/s. Indi Konnect Private

Limited/IGNITE at the instance of the petitioner/Accused No.9 and Accused

No.4, and that the said company was projected as a sub-franchise of

IGNITE. It is further alleged that the petitioner/Accused No.9 and Accused

No.4 exercised control over and transferred funds collected from investors,

while Accused Nos.7 and 8 allegedly received remuneration for activities

relating to the incorporation of the company.

4

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific overt act

relating to inducement, cheating, collection or receipt of money has been

attributed to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the alleged role

of the petitioner is confined to arranging persons to act as directors and

facilitating the incorporation of M/s. Indi Konnect Ventures Private Limited. It

is submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was

subsequently implicated primarily on the basis of the statements of

co-accused.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation of any

direct communication, inducement or representation made by the petitioner

to the de facto complainant. It is also contended that there is no independent

money trail connecting the petitioner either with the alleged transaction

involving Rs.61,798/- or with the de facto complainant. It is further argued

that the status and encashment of the Demand Drafts have not been

established through the relevant bank records.

5.3. It is submitted that the petitioner’s premises were searched on

09.07.2026 and that the only materials allegedly recovered therefrom were

an attendance register and documents relating to the incorporation of the

company with the Registrar of Companies (ROC), with no incriminating

material or money having been recovered. Thereafter, notice under Section

35(3) of the BNSS was issued on 30.07.2026, directing the petitioner to

5

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

appear on or before 06.08.2026. According to the learned counsel, the

issuance of such notice indicates that, at that stage, the investigating agency

did not consider the arrest of the petitioner necessary. It is, therefore,

contended that, in the absence of any subsequent circumstance or fresh

material demonstrating a changed position, there is no justification for

subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation.

5.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that mere

involvement in the incorporation of a company, without independent material

demonstrating knowledge of or participation in the alleged illegal scheme,

cannot by itself fasten criminal liability upon the petitioner. Reliance is placed

on the decisions in P. Subbaraju v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine

TS 1477; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1

SCC 694; and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565,

in support of the proposition that the individual role attributed to the petitioner

and the actual necessity for custodial interrogation are relevant

considerations while examining a prayer for anticipatory bail.

5.5. It is further submitted that the evidence in the present case is

predominantly documentary in nature, comprising banking records,

corporate records and electronic communications, all of which can be

collected and examined without arresting the petitioner. The petitioner

undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any

6

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned

counsel for the petitioner prays that anticipatory bail be granted to the

petitioner.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the petition, submits

that the crime was registered pursuant to allegations of an organised

fraud/money-circulation scheme operated under the name and style of

IGNITE and allegedly linked with QNET/Vihaan. It is contended that the

petitioner/Accused No.9 played a key role in planning and establishing the

alleged scheme and in facilitating the incorporation of M/s. Indi Konnect

Ventures Private Limited/Accused No.2.

6.2. In particular, it is alleged, on the basis of the additional confession

statement of Accused No.4, that Accused No.9 arranged Accused Nos.7 and

8 to act as Directors of Accused No.2-company and contemplated its

registration with the ROC. It is further alleged that Accused Nos.7 and 8,

being employees of the petitioner, became directors at his instance. The

prosecution also alleges that the petitioner/Accused No.9, along with

Accused No.4, controlled and transferred the funds received through

Accused No.2-company.

6.3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the

statements of Accused Nos.4, 7 and 8, read with the documents recovered

7

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

during the search of the petitioner’s premises, prima facie support the

allegation of the petitioner’s involvement in the larger conspiracy. It is further

contended by the prosecution that, although notice under Section 35(3) of

the BNSS was issued to the petitioner at an earlier stage, the subsequent

course of investigation disclosed the necessity of custodial interrogation. It is

further contended that the incorporation of Accused No.2-company and the

appointment of Accused Nos.7 and 8 as its directors formed part of the

larger conspiracy alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution submits that

the question whether the petitioner personally received any portion of the

complainant’s money, and whether such receipt establishes his participation

in the alleged scheme, also requires further investigation. The prosecution

further apprehends that, having regard to the petitioner’s alleged connection

with Accused No.4, who is stated to be absconding, the petitioner may

influence witnesses or otherwise interfere with the investigation. It is,

therefore, submitted that the seriousness and organised nature of the

alleged offences, coupled with the material collected during investigation,

warrant a cautious approach at this stage.

6.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the earlier

issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS does not, by itself,

preclude a subsequent arrest, if the investigation thereafter discloses

circumstances demonstrating the necessity of such arrest. It is contended

that the authorities relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on the

8

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the

material available on record.

8. The specific role attributed to the petitioner/Accused No.9 is that he

arranged Accused Nos.7 and 8 to act as Directors and facilitated the

incorporation of M/s. Indi Konnect Private Limited. Though the prosecution

relies upon the statements of Accused Nos.4, 7 and 8, as well as the

documents recovered during the search of the petitioner’s premises, it is not

in dispute that the petitioner was not named in the original complaint/FIR.

Further, the prosecution material presently placed before the Court does not

refer to any specific overt act on the part of the petitioner involving direct

communication with, or representation to, the de facto complainant, nor does

it demonstrate, at this stage, that any amount pertaining to the alleged

transaction was encashed by, or credited to, any bank account under the

petitioner’s control.

9. The statements of the co-accused, therefore, have to be assessed in

the context of the other material collected during investigation and with

reference to the extent of independent corroboration available. These

circumstances are relevant for assessing the petitioner’s individual role,

9

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

without expressing any final opinion on the merits or evidentiary value of the

prosecution material. It is also relevant to note that, according to the

prosecution itself, the petitioner’s premises were searched on 09.07.2026

and no money or other incriminating material was stated to have been

recovered therefrom. Thereafter, notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS

dated 30.07.2026 was issued directing the petitioner to appear before the

investigating agency. In this context, the principle reiterated by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation

and Another, 2026 INSC 115, that arrest cannot be treated as a routine or

mechanical measure and that the necessity for arrest must be demonstrable,

assumes relevance.

10. Mere apprehension that custodial interrogation may facilitate tracing

the money trail or enable examination of digital and financial material,

without specific material indicating that such purposes cannot effectively be

achieved through other investigative measures, may not, by itself, justify the

petitioner’s arrest. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the

seriousness and gravity of the allegations concerning an organised money-

circulation scheme and the alleged conspiracy involving Accused No.4 and

the other accused. The nature of the allegations, therefore, has to be

balanced against the petitioner’s specific and individual role and the

necessity, if any, for his custodial interrogation.

10

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

11. The principles governing consideration of a prayer for anticipatory bail

require the Court to examine, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the

accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of his

absconding or tampering with the evidence, and the necessity of custodial

interrogation, as recognised in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

Maharashtra, supra, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5

SCC 1.

12. On an assessment of the material presently available, the

investigation appears, at this stage, to substantially depend upon

documentary, corporate, banking and electronic evidence. The prosecution

has not placed before this Court any specific material demonstrating that

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for securing any

particular recovery or discovery, which cannot otherwise be achieved

through the ordinary course of investigation. The requirement of further

investigation, by itself, cannot be equated with a demonstrated necessity for

custodial interrogation, particularly, where the relevant documentary,

banking, corporate and electronic records are otherwise capable of being

secured and examined by the investigating agency.

13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case

or on the ultimate evidentiary value of the material collected by the

prosecution, this Court has considered the petitioner’s alleged individual

role, the absence, at this stage, of a demonstrated direct money trail

11

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

connecting him with the alleged transaction, the search of his premises on

09.07.2026, the subsequent issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the

BNSS dated 30.07.2026, and the petitioner’s undertaking to cooperate with

the investigation and particularly in the absence of specific material

demonstrating that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is indispensable for

any recovery, discovery or other investigative purpose, which cannot

otherwise be secured, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of

anticipatory bail.

14. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused

No. 9 is enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

(A) The petitioner/Accused No. 9 shall surrender before the

Station House Officer/Investigating Officer, P.S EOW, Team-I, CCS,

DD, Hyderabad, on or before 24.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in

the event of arrest, the Station House Officer/Investigating Officer shall

release the petitioner/Accused No. 9 on bail on execution of personal

bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with two

sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said Officer.

(B) The petitioner/Accused No. 9 shall appear before the

Investigating Officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between

10:00 AM to 03:00 PM, for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date

12

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

of his release on bail or until filing of the final result, whichever is

earlier.

(C) The petitioner/Accused No. 9 shall remain available for

interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer during

the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation with the

Investigating Officer.

(D) The petitioner/Accused No. 9 shall strictly comply with all the

conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

(E) The petitioner/Accused No. 9 shall furnish his complete

residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the

Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any changes therein.

(F) The petitioner/Accused No. 9 shall not directly or indirectly

induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the

facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any

manner whatsoever.

(G) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid

conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings

before the Court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance

with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

(H) The Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed in

accordance with law in the event of violation of conditions or

13

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13602 of 2026

emergence of subsequent material genuinely necessitating custodial

interrogation of the petitioner.

15. It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely

to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall

not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________

N.TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 09.09.2026

svl