APHC010440162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8787/2025 Between: Kothuri Venu Gopal Rao and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SYED ARIF BASHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 APHC010439912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8789/2025 Between: Kothuri Venu Gopal Rao and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SYED ARIF BASHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Criminal Petition No. 8787 of 2025 has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting of pre- arrest bail to the petitioners-accused Nos. 3, 17, 19 and 20 in crime No. 115 of 2025 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4) and 316 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Criminal Petition No. 8789 of 2025 has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting of pre- arrest bail to the petitioners-accused Nos. 39, 40, 42 and 43 in crime No. 114 of 2025 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4) and 316 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Even though these two criminal petitions arise out of two different crimes namely crime Nos. 115 of 2025 and 114 of 2025 respectively of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, the nature of the transactions in both the crimes is one and the same. The petitioners are also same in the two FIRs. Hence, these two criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IN CRIME No. 115 OF 2025: 4. De facto complainant was introduced to accused No. 1 through acquaintances and was convinced about the legality of the business after personally verifying the office of the company. Between November, 2023, and 4 April, 2025, de facto complainant along with his family members and friends invested approximately Rs.10,74,00,000/- in UPIX Groups belonging to accused No. 1. The investments were made based on agreements issued by accused No. 1 with promised returns ranging from regular monthly payments to double or triple the invested amount upon maturity. While some initial returns were paid for few months, the payments eventually stopped. By February, 2025, the office of the company was found locked and accused No. 1 along with his family and staff became untraceable. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IN CRIME No. 114 OF 2025: 5. De facto complainant was introduced to accused No. 1 through acquaintances and was convinced about the legality of the business after personally verifying the office of the company. Between November, 2023, and April, 2025, de facto complainant along with his family members and friends invested approximately Rs.6,80,00,000/- in UPIX Groups belonging to accused No. 1 The investments were made based on agreements issued by accused No. 1 with promised returns ranging from regular monthly payments to double or triple the invested amount upon maturity. While some initial returns were paid for few months, the payments eventually stopped. By February, 2025, the office of the company was found locked and accused No. 1 along with his family and staff became untraceable. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 6. SriP.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Syed Arif Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the 5 petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. The petitioners undertaketo abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioners. 7. Learned senior counsel further submits that nearly Rs.2,79,72,000/- worth of properties were shown in the insolvency petition filed by accused No. 1 and his wife before Court at Ranga Reddy. Of course, the insolvency petition was filed after registration of two crimes. In that insolvency petition, the petitioners herein were shown as creditor Nos. 39, 40, 42 and 43. Thus, it is contended that the petitioners are also a kind of victims to the luring of accused No. 1. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioners have permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law.It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 9. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the petitioners committed an economic offence, in which the conditions for grant of anticipatory bail are stringent. The investigation is at primitive stage. Only 43 witnesses have been examined out of 183 victims. Nearly Rs.27,00,00,000/- were diverted to the family members of accused No. 3. 6 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioners got four immovable properties worth of Rs.12,00,000/- before the year 2019 whereas they got fifteen properties worth of Rs.4,80,00,000/- subsequent to the year 2019. Thus, they got these huge properties by way of cheating de facto complainants. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioners donot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 11. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 12. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 13. Accused No. 1-Nidumolu Venkata Satya Lakshmi established an animation company by name UPIX Groups in the year 2014 in a rented office at Vijayawada. One Dileep Kumar Kaluvakolanu-de facto complainant in crime No. 115 of 2025 alleged that accused No. 3-K.Venu Gopala Rao was known to him and through him, he came to know that Rs.5/- to Rs.6/- would be benefitted towards interest for Rs.100/- if investment is kept in UUPIX Groups. Accused No. 3 used to state de facto complainant that he got higher profits when he invested moneys in UPIX Animation Project from 2017 7 onwards. Initially, through accused No. 3, de facto complainant invested Rs.30,00,000/- and got Rs.48,00,000/- in the end of the year. De facto complainant further alleged that accused No.1-Nidumolu Venkata Satya Lakshmi Kiran got acquaintance with de facto complainant through accused No. 3 in the year 2022 and he invested through accused No. 3 in UPIX Groups an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Accused No. 1 executed an agreement to de facto complainant stating that he would pay Rs.1,00,00,000/- after 14 months. Later, accused No. 1 took Rs.1,10,00,000/-on 10-04-2023 under the guise of keeping it in Disney Project for five years towards investment. For a period of five years, he would get Rs.9,00,00,000/-later. Accordingly, an agreement was entered in between de facto complainant and accused No. 1. Later, on 30-11-2023, de facto complainant paid Rs.40,00,000/- towards investment for sixteen months. 14. On 28-12-2023, de facto complainant also gave Rs.55,00,000/- to accused No.1. De facto complainant received Rs.75,00,000/- towards profits and the said amount was also again re-invested with accused No.1 on 25-03-2024 and Rs.45,00,000/- was also re-invested. On 30-04-2024, Rs.30,00,000/- was also re-invested. De facto complainant got tendered Rs.30,00,000/- towards loan to accused No. 1 though his known friends. De facto complainant alleges that in total, Rs.3,20,00,000/- had been given to accused No. 1 and he also, through his friends and relatives, got issued Rs.3,28,00,000/- to accused No. 1 for investment in UPIX Groups. 8 15. As seen from the allegations of one Srinivasa Rao Tripuramallu-de facto complainant in crime No. 114 of 2025, he alleged that through de facto complainant in crime No. 115 of 2025, he got acquaintance with accused No. 1 and invested Rs.1,00,00,000/- in UPIX Groups. 16. In the above two complaints, the allegations are against one Nidumolu Venkata Satya Lakshmi Kiran-accused No. 1 who is running UPIX Groups. The petitioner-accused-Kothuri Venu Gopal Rao acted as a mediator for parting of huge amounts of de facto complainants in crime Nos. 115 and 114 of 2025. The accused-Nidumolu Venkata Satya Lakshmi Kiran, thus, allegedly lured de facto complainants and promised to invest huge amounts for higher profits in UPIX Groups. The accused-Nidumolu Venkata Satya Lakshmi Kiran is running a Graphics Studio Cartoon Network. The accused- Nidumolu Venkata Satya Lakshmi Kiran got investments nearly Rs.27,00,00,000/- from nearly 183 victims. 17. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are minor daughters of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. They are studying intermediate. So far, 43 witnesses have been examined. The investigating officer had sought for attachment of some immovable properties. Accused No. 1-Nidumolu Venkata Satya Lakshmi Kiran was arrested and he is in jail. The petitioner-accused No. 3-accused No. 39 had undergone twice surgeries because of his heart enlargement. He is aged about 57 years. A bunch of medical records has been filed. They have been confirmed genuine by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. In the year 2017, first surgery was conducted for the petitioner/accused No. 3/accused No. 39. 9 In the year 2025, second surgery was conducted. Therefore, he is an acute heart patient. CONCLUSION: 18. Considering the alleged role played and the gravity and the nature of allegations levelled against petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4/-accused Nos.3, 19 and 20 in Crime No.115/2025 on the file of the Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada and accused Nos.39, 42 and 43 in Crime No.114/2025 on the file of the Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to them with the following conditions: (i) In the event of their arrest, petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/accused Nos. 3, 19 and 20 in Crime No.115/2025, accused Nos. 39, 42 and 43 in Crime No.114/2025 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each a bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials in the two crimes i.e., in Crime No.115/2025 and Crime No.114/2025, separate sureties; (ii) Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/accused Nos. 3, 19 and 20/accused Nos. 39, 42 and 43 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; (iii) Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/accused Nos. 3, 19 and 20/accused Nos. 39, 42 and 43 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; 10 (iv) Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/accused Nos. 3, 19 and 20/accused Nos. 39, 42 and 43 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e. on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till filing of the charge sheet; (v) Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/accused Nos. 3, 19 and 20/accused Nos. 39, 42 and 43 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned; and (vi) Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/accused Nos. 3, 19 and 20/accused Nos. 39, 42 and 43 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 19. Insofar as the allegations against petitioner No. 2/accused No. 17/accused No. 40/Kothuri Naga Mallika are concerned, she was hugely benefitted through her husband who has been granted pre-arrest bail on medical grounds. Investigation is at the nascent stage. Only 43 witnesses are examined out of 183 victims. Hence, the prayer of petitioner No. 2/Kothuri Naga Mallika is rejected as she is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. 20. The criminal petition is, accordingly, partly allowed. _______________________ Date: 12-09-2025, Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. JSK 11 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 8787 AND 8789 OF 2025 DATE: 12-09-2025 JSK