IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 13710 OF 2026

(CNR No. HBHC010572772026)

DATE: 17.09.2026

Between :

Sri Saroj Kumar Pandey

… Petitioner/Accused

AND

State of Telangana, Through the Public Prosecutor,

Commercial Taxes Department, 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. 2 in connection with Ref. No.

CCT’s Enft/JE1/05/2026 of Commercial Taxes Department, Telangana

State, for the offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and

Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “CGST Act”) and 132(1)(i) of the

Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “TGST Act”).

2

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

3. Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax,

representing the respondent-Commercial Taxes Department, Telangana

State.

Brief Facts of the Case:

4.1. The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Shah Batteries Private

Limited, a company carrying on business at Hyderabad. The Commercial

Taxes Department initiated proceedings against the petitioner and the

Company alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of

approximately Rs.98.47 Crores on the strength of invoices allegedly issued

by non-genuine suppliers, thereby alleging commission of an offence

punishable under Section 132(1)(c) of the Act, 2017. In the course of the

investigation, search proceedings were conducted at the premises of the

Company on 30.04.2026, during which certain documents and electronic

devices were seized. A further search was conducted on 05.06.2026.

4.2. The petitioner states that he and the Company have been cooperating

with the investigation and have complied with the summons issued by the

Department by furnishing replies and relevant documents. It is further stated

that the Company deposited an amount of Rs.1.50 Crores through DRC-03,

under protest. During the course of the investigation, the other

3

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

Director/Accused No.1 was arrested on 16.06.2026 and was subsequently

enlarged on bail by the trial Court on 23.07.2026 in Crl.M.P. No.295 of 2026.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest pursuant to the arrest authorization

stated to have been issued by the Commissioner, State Tax. The petitioner

contends that the documentary and electronic material relevant to the

investigation has already been seized and is in the custody of the

Department. He further submits that he has continuously cooperated with the

investigation and that there is no likelihood of his absconding, tampering with

evidence, or influencing the witnesses. The petitioner further asserts that the

transactions in question were genuine and were supported by tax invoices,

e-way bills, photographs, banking transactions and Books of Accounts. It is

also asserted that the concerned suppliers possessed valid GST

registrations at the relevant point of time. On these grounds, the petitioner

seeks protection from arrest.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner:

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation

initiated by the Commercial Taxes Department relates to the allegation of

wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). It is contended that the

investigation is predominantly founded upon documentary and electronic

material, most of which has already been seized and is in the custody of the

Investigating Agency. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is neither necessary nor warranted. He further

4

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

submits that the petitioner has appeared before the Authorities pursuant to

the summons issued to him and has furnished replies and relevant

documents. It is contended that the petitioner has throughout remained

available to the Investigating Agency and has cooperated with the

investigation. It is further submitted that there is no material to indicate that

the petitioner is likely to abscond, tamper with the evidence, or influence any

of the witnesses.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s Company is a

duly registered and genuine business entity having substantial business

turnover and GST compliance and is neither a fictitious entity nor a shell

company. According to the petitioner, the transactions forming the subject

matter of the investigation were genuine business transactions, supported by

records including tax invoices, e-way bills, photographs, banking

transactions and Books of Accounts, evidencing the receipt of goods and

corresponding payments. Learned counsel further submits that the

concerned suppliers possessed valid GST registrations at the time of the

transactions and that any subsequent cancellation of such registrations or

adverse action against the suppliers cannot, by itself, establish criminal

liability on the part of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Company

has already deposited an amount through DRC-03, under protest, which,

according to the petitioner, demonstrates his bona fides and willingness to

cooperate with the investigation.

5

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

5.3. Learned counsel places reliance upon the fact that the co-Director,

who was arrested in connection with the same proceedings, has

subsequently been enlarged on bail. It is, therefore, contended that the

petitioner, being similarly situated and having cooperated with the

investigation, is also entitled to protection by way of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel reiterates that the relevant documents and electronic

devices have already been seized and are in the possession of the

Department and, consequently, custodial detention of the petitioner would

serve no further investigative purpose.

5.4. Learned counsel further places reliance upon the authority in Sandeep

Kumar Goel and another v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine TS 7232,

wherein this Court, while considering similar allegations relating to fraudulent

availment of excess Input Tax Credit, observed that where the evidence is

documentary in nature and is already available with the Investigating

Agency, and the accused are cooperating with the investigation, custodial

interrogation cannot be treated as necessary merely because the alleged

offence is a serious economic offence.

5.5. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the petitioner prays

that, having regard to the petitioner’s continued cooperation with the

investigation, the availability of the relevant documentary and electronic

material with the Investigating Agency, the absence of any likelihood of

6

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

abscondence or tampering with the evidence, and the fact that the co-

Director has already been granted bail, the petitioner/Accused No.2 may

also be granted protection from arrest and released on bail on such terms

and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper.

Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent-Department:

6.1. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the

respondent-Department, opposed the petition and submitted that the

petitioner/Accused No.2 is one of the Directors of M/s. Shah Batteries

Private Limited, against which proceedings have been initiated in respect of

the alleged fraudulent availment and utilisation of ITC amounting to Rs.98.47

Crores. It is contended that the ITC was allegedly availed on the strength of

invoices issued by 17 fraudulent/shell taxpayers without any actual supply or

movement of goods. According to the respondent-Department, out of the

declared GST liability of approximately Rs.102.33 Crores, only Rs.45.42

Lakhs was discharged in cash, whereas Rs.98.47 Crores was discharged by

utilising the disputed Input Tax Credit.

6.2. Learned Special Government Pleader further submits that the

investigation has disclosed, prima facie, that the 17 supplier entities formed

part of a fraudulent network. It is alleged that several of the said entities

shared common residential addresses and that their GST returns were filed

from a common IP address, even within short intervals. According to the

7

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

Department, these circumstances indicate that the transactions were

centrally managed and were not genuine. It is further alleged that the

petitioner and Accused No.1 were actively involved in the transactions in

question and acted as the masterminds of the alleged ITC fraud by colluding

with the said supplier entities and creating a false documentary trail.

6.3. The respondent-Department disputes the contention of the petitioner

that the transactions were genuine merely because tax invoices, e-way bills,

banking transactions and other supporting documents are available. Learned

Special Government Pleader submits that such documents could have been

created or utilised to give a semblance of genuineness to transactions in

which there was, in fact, no actual movement or supply of goods. He further

submits that the investigation is still at a crucial stage and that custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for tracing the complete financial

trail, identifying the ultimate beneficiaries, examining the alleged hawala

channels, and assessing the involvement of other persons and entities

connected with the alleged fraud. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner

has not fully cooperated with the investigation and that, having regard to his

alleged role in the transactions, his custodial interrogation cannot be

dispensed with at this stage. The respondent-Department further expresses

apprehension that, if the petitioner is protected by anticipatory bail, he may

interfere with the ongoing investigation by tampering with electronic

evidence, destroying or manipulating Books of Accounts and other records,

8

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

or influencing witnesses. According to the respondent-Department, the fact

that certain documents and electronic devices have already been seized

does not eliminate the necessity for further investigation or custodial

interrogation, particularly when the persons and entities allegedly involved in

the fraudulent transactions, as well as the complete financial trail, are yet to

be fully traced.

6.4. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the allegations

relate to a serious economic offence involving alleged fraudulent availment

and utilisation of ITC and substantial loss to Government revenue. It is

contended that the magnitude of the alleged fraud, the organised nature of

the transactions, the petitioner’s purported active role, and the present stage

of the investigation are circumstances that weigh against the grant of pre-

arrest protection. The respondent further submits that the deposit of Rs.1.50

Crores through DRC-03, under protest, represents only a small portion of the

disputed ITC and cannot, by itself, negate the alleged criminal liability of the

petitioner or constitute a ground for granting anticipatory bail.

6.5. In support of the opposition to the petition, learned Special

Government Pleader relies upon the authorities in P.V. Ramana Reddy v.

Union of India and others, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 784 (High Court

of Telangana); Vimal Nayan and others v. The Principal Commissioner of

GST and Central Excise and others, MANU/TN/1533/2019 (High Court of

9

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

Madras, decided on 12.02.2019); Premchand Jain and others v. Union of

India, MANU/RH/0139/2026 (High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench,

decided on 07.02.2026); Suresh Hukmat Rai Jadhwani v. Union of India and

others, (2022) 94 GST 767 (Bom.) (High Court of Bombay, decided on

04.07.2022); Attaaulha Mohammad Nairn Chaudhari v. The State of

Maharashtra, MANU/MH/4126/2022 (High Court of Bombay, decided on

10.06.2022); Union of India v. Gautam Garg, MANU/RH/1496/2024 (High

Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, decided on 25.07.2024); and Rajesh

Kumar Dudani v. State of Uttarakhand and others, MANU/UC/0863/2022

(High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, decided on 22.09.2022). It is pleaded

that, in the aforesaid authorities, different High Courts have considered that

the question of granting anticipatory bail in a serious GST investigation

cannot be determined solely by reference to the fact that the alleged

evidence is documentary in nature. According to the respondent-

Department, the Courts have measured the magnitude of the alleged

fraudulent ITC, the nature and complexity of the transactions, the alleged

network of entities involved, the stage of the investigation, the specific role

attributed to the accused, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for an

effective investigation.

6.6. Learned Special Government Pleader further places reliance upon the

authorities in State of Gujarat v. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC

364; Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466; and Y.S. Jagan Mohan

10

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, contending that economic offences

involving deep-rooted conspiracies and substantial involvement of public

revenue require a different approach while considering an application for

bail. It is further contended that, while considering the gravity of the alleged

offence, the Courts have declined to grant anticipatory bail in cases involving

allegations relating to fake invoices and fraudulent availment of ITC.

6.7. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the investigation in

the present case is at a nascent and crucial stage and that grant of

anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper an effective investigation into the

alleged network of fraudulent suppliers, the movement and tracing of funds,

and the identification of the ultimate beneficiaries. It is, therefore, contended

that the petitioner has not made out any acceptable ground for grant of pre-

arrest protection. On these grounds, the respondent-Department seeks

dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

Consideration of the Rival Contentions:

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

material available on record.

8. In the context of the rival contentions, the present application has to

be examined not merely with reference to the magnitude of the alleged

wrongful availment of ITC, but by balancing the seriousness of the alleged

11

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

economic offence against the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal

liberty and, in particular, by examining the factual necessity for custodial

interrogation at the present stage of the investigation.

9.1 There can be no serious dispute that the allegations against the

petitioner are grave. The respondent-Department alleges fraudulent

availment and utilisation of ITC of approximately Rs.98.47 Crores on the

strength of invoices allegedly issued by 17 non-genuine suppliers, without

any actual supply or movement of goods.

9.2. The allegations, if established, attract the penal consequences

contemplated under Section 132 of the CGST/TGST Act, particularly where

the amount of tax evaded or the amount of ITC wrongly availed or utilised

exceeds the prescribed threshold under Section 132(1)(i) of the Act, the

alleged offence falls within the higher category of punishment contemplated

under the said provision.

9.3. Section 132(5) of the CGST/TGST Act provides that an offence falling

under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 132(1), punishable under clause (i)

thereof, is cognizable and non-bailable. The gravity of the allegations and

the magnitude of the alleged loss of revenue are, therefore, undoubtedly

relevant considerations while considering the petitioner’s prayer for pre-

arrest protection.

12

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

9.4. At the same time, the statutory power of arrest under Section 69 of the

Act, 2017 cannot be equated with an automatic requirement to arrest in

every case. Section 69 predicates the exercise of the power upon the

Commissioner having “reasons to believe” that the person has committed an

offence specified under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 132(1) of the Act.

10.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Radhika Agarwal and another v.

Union of India and others, 2025 INSC 272, while upholding the validity of

Sections 69 and 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, made it clear that the

Commissioner must record reasons to believe on the basis of material

demonstrating satisfaction of the statutory conditions. Arrest cannot be

founded upon mere suspicion or be resorted to merely for the purpose of

investigating whether the statutory conditions for arrest exist. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court expressly emphasised that the power of arrest must be

exercised with circumspection and cannot be exercised casually.

10.2. In that context, while considering allegations of fraudulent availment of

ITC of approximately Rs.95 Crores through allegedly fictitious suppliers and

invoices, the Court observed that the seriousness of an economic offence,

by itself, cannot justify arrest. The Court was required to examine, inter alia,

the availability of evidence, the conduct and cooperation of the accused, the

possibility of abscondence or tampering with evidence, and, most

importantly, whether custodial interrogation was actually indispensable.

13

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

10.3. Ultimately, anticipatory bail was granted in that case on the

consideration that the investigation substantially rested upon documentary,

financial and electronic material which had already been secured by the

Department and that there was no compelling material demonstrating that

custodial interrogation was indispensable at that stage.

11.1. The aforesaid principle is also consistent with the decision in Tarun

Jain v. Director General of GST Intelligence, 2021:DHC:3841, wherein the

Delhi High Court considered allegations relating to fraudulent availment of

ITC of approximately Rs.72 Crores against a Director of a company. The

Court treated the necessity of custodial interrogation as a question to be

examined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the particular

investigation and did not treat the magnitude of the alleged ITC fraud, by

itself, as determinative of the question of pre-arrest protection.

11.2. The broader jurisprudential distinction between the existence of the

power to arrest and the necessity of exercising that power is also reflected in

Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 260, wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the mere existence of the power of arrest

does not furnish an official justification for exercising it in every case. The

said principle has subsequently been applied in the context of economic

offences while considering whether deprivation of liberty by way of custodial

interrogation is actually required for an effective investigation.

14

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

11.3. Similarly, in Arvind Kejriwal v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 INSC

400, the distinction between the existence of the statutory power of arrest

and the necessity for its actual exercise has been recognised. The

proposition, therefore, is not that arrest is impermissible in a GST

investigation. Rather, the necessity for arrest must be demonstrable with

reference to the circumstances of the individual case.

11.4. At the same time, the respondent’s reliance upon the seriousness of

the alleged economic offence is not without substance. In P. Chidambaram

v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court recognised that economic offences constitute a distinct class and that

the gravity and magnitude of the alleged offence, the nature of the

allegations, and the requirement of effective investigation are relevant

considerations while considering an application for anticipatory bail.

11.5. Likewise, in Premchand Jain (supra), the Rajasthan High Court

declined pre-arrest protection to the principal accused in a GST case

involving substantial tax evasion, emphasising the gravity of the alleged

economic offence and the alleged central role of the accused in the

continuing investigation. Significantly, in the same judgment, anticipatory bail

was granted to the co-petitioner whose role was found to be comparatively

limited.

15

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

11.6. Thus, the decision in Premchand Jain itself demonstrates that the

individual role attributed to an accused remains a material consideration and

that the quantum of alleged tax evasion, though undoubtedly relevant,

cannot by itself be treated as determinative of the entitlement to pre-arrest

protection.

12.1. In the instant case, the petitioner asserts that he has appeared

pursuant to summons, furnished replies and relevant documents, and

remained available to the Investigating Agency. The Department, on the

other hand, alleges that the petitioner has not fully cooperated with the

investigation and that his custodial interrogation is required for tracing the

complete financial trail, identifying the ultimate beneficiaries, examining the

alleged hawala channels, and ascertaining the involvement of other persons

and entities connected with the alleged fraud.

12.2. These rival assertions cannot be resolved merely on the basis of the

magnitude of the alleged ITC. The Court is required to ascertain whether the

Department has placed before it concrete material demonstrating why the

aforesaid investigative objectives cannot reasonably be achieved through

further summons, production of documents, examination of witnesses,

forensic examination of the seized material and electronic devices, scrutiny

of Books of Accounts and other records, or by adopting other investigative

measures short of custodial interrogation.

16

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

12.3. The fact that documents and electronic devices belonging to the

Company have already been seized is, therefore, a material circumstance,

though not by itself conclusive. The significance of such seizure has to be

assessed in the context of the Department’s further case that relevant

material remains to be traced and that the petitioner alone may be in a

position to identify or explain the movement of funds or the functioning of the

alleged network of supplier entities.

12.4. Conversely, if the Department is able to demonstrate that material

evidence remains vulnerable to destruction or manipulation by the petitioner,

or that the petitioner has deliberately avoided meaningful cooperation and

that his custodial interrogation is necessary to secure or recover such

material, the requirement of custodial interrogation would stand on a different

footing.

12.5. However, where the material relied upon by the Department is already

substantially in its possession, the petitioner has appeared pursuant to

summons and has otherwise cooperated with the investigation, a mere

assertion that custodial interrogation is necessary cannot, by itself, substitute

for a specific demonstration of investigative necessity.

13.1. The allegation that the petitioner and the co-Director were the

masterminds of the alleged fraud is undoubtedly a serious circumstance.

17

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

However, such an allegation has to be assessed with reference to the

material collected during the investigation. The petitioner’s status as a

Director, by itself, cannot conclusively establish his personal participation in

every transaction undertaken by the Company.

13.2. At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, the

Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the

allegations or conduct a mini-trial regarding the genuineness of the

underlying supplier entities. Nevertheless, the material connecting the

particular petitioner with the alleged fraudulent availment and utilisation of

ITC, and the question whether his arrest is necessary for further

investigation, are relevant aspects which require consideration.

13.3. The petitioner’s reliance upon the bail granted to the co-

accused/Accused No.1 also requires consideration. Although the principle of

parity cannot be applied mechanically, the fact that the co-Director was

arrested in the same investigation and has subsequently been released on

bail may have persuasive value, particularly if the allegations, respective

roles and circumstances of both Directors are substantially comparable.

13.4. At the same time, parity is not an independent or inflexible ground for

granting anticipatory bail. If the Department establishes materially different

conduct, role, involvement, or investigative requirements in respect of the

18

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

present petitioner, the fact that the co-accused has been granted bail would

not, by itself, entitle the petitioner to similar relief.

13.5. The deposit of Rs.1.50 Crores through DRC-03, under protest, is

likewise a relevant circumstance while assessing the petitioner’s conduct

and bona fides, but it neither extinguishes nor determines his alleged

criminal liability. Payment or deposit of an amount during the course of

investigation cannot be treated either as an admission of guilt or as an

automatic defence to the prosecution. Equally, such conduct cannot be

ignored altogether while assessing the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate

with the investigation.

13.6. There is also a procedural aspect concerning the alleged arrest

authorization which requires consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in

Sunil Biyani v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 849, clarified that an order under

Section 69 of the Act, 2017, recording the Commissioner’s “reasons to

believe”, is a sine qua non for the exercise of the power of arrest and that

such order must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested so

that the person is able to effectively avail the remedy of pre-arrest bail.

13.7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that, until such

communication, the question of arrest does not arise. Consequently, where

the petitioner merely apprehends arrest on the basis of an alleged

19

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

authorization, but the Department has not communicated the Section 69

order and the reasons to believe forming the basis thereof, the Court would

be justified in requiring the Department to comply with the statutory and

constitutional safeguards governing arrest. The aforesaid principle further

strengthens the procedural dimension of the petitioner’s challenge to the

apprehended arrest.

14.1. On an overall consideration of the matter, the Court is required to

distinguish between the existence of a serious and cognizable/non-bailable

GST offence and the necessity of arrest at the particular stage of the

investigation.

14.2. The seriousness of the alleged offence is undoubtedly established, at

the prima facie level, by the quantum of ITC allegedly availed and utilised

and by the nature of the allegations concerning the alleged network of non-

genuine suppliers.

14.3. The question of whether pre-arrest protection should nevertheless be

granted has to be determined with reference to the petitioner’s individual

role, his conduct during the investigation, the nature of the material yet to be

collected, the possibility of tampering with evidence or abscondence, and,

most importantly, the necessity or otherwise of custodial interrogation for

carrying the investigation forward effectively.

20

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

Conclusion:

15.1. In the facts pleaded before this Court, the investigation has already

involved searches and seizure of documents and electronic devices. The

petitioner asserts continued cooperation with the investigation, and the

material relied upon by the parties is substantially documentary and

electronic in nature. Further, the co-accused, who is the Managing Director

and was arrested in connection with the same investigation, has already

been enlarged on bail.

15.2. These circumstances are relevant and materially comparable for the

purpose of considering the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail. At the

same time, the relief cannot be granted without securing the interests of the

prosecution and ensuring the petitioner’s continued cooperation with the

investigation.

15.3. Accordingly, on the basis of the pleadings and material presently

placed before this Court, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of

anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions requiring his appearance

before the Investigating Authority and ensuring his cooperation with the

investigation, while safeguarding the legitimate interests of the prosecution.

21

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused

No.2 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following

conditions:

(A) The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender before the

Apprehending Authority/Authorized Officer concerned, on or before

03.09.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the

Authorized Officer/Investigating Officer shall release the

petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail on execution of personal bonds for a

sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only), with two sureties for a

like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said Officer.

(B) The petitioner/Accused No. 2 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

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

earlier.

(C) The petitioner/Accused No. 2 shall appear before the

Authorized Officer/Investigating Officer as and when directed for the

purpose of investigation and shall cooperate with the investigation in all

respects.

(D) The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall furnish his complete

residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the

22

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

Authorized Officer/Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any

change(s) therein.

(E) The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave India without

obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Court concerned.

(F) The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not directly or indirectly

induce, threaten, influence any person acquainted with the facts of the

case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner

whatsoever.

(G) The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall strictly comply with all the

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

(H) Any willful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid

conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings

before the jurisdictional Court, including cancellation of bail, in

accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

17. However, it is expressly clarified that the protection granted herein

shall not preclude the competent authority from taking any further action

strictly in accordance with Sections 69 and 132 of the Act, 2017. The

Investigating Officer shall remain at liberty to proceed with the

investigation in accordance with law. In the event that any subsequent

material comes to light demonstrating satisfaction of the statutory

conditions and establishing a genuine necessity for the arrest of the

23

NTR,J

Crl.P. No. 13710 of 2026

petitioner, the competent authority shall be entitled to take such further

action as may be permissible in law. The observations made in this order

shall not be construed as either restricting the statutory powers of the

competent authority or expressing any opinion on the merits of the

allegations against the petitioner.

18. It is further 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 of opinion on

the merits of the case. The Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to

conduct the investigation uninfluenced by any observations made herein.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________

N.TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 17.09.2026

svl