Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Refused on Mere Apprehension: Telangana High Court in Lavleen Goel vs State of Telangana
Overview of the Case
The Telangana High Court, in Lavleen Goel Vs State of Telangana, adjudicated a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), wherein the petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with an alleged organised money-circulation and luxury-product scheme operated under the brand name IGNITE and through the corporate entity M/s Indi Konnect Ventures Private Limited.
The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 9 in Crime No. 294 of 2026 of Kachiguda Police Station, which was subsequently transferred and re-registered as Crime No. 121 of 2026 of P.S. EOW, Team-I, CCS, Detective Department, Hyderabad.
Statutory Provisions Invoked
The offences alleged against the accused persons were punishable under:
- Sections 318(4) and 316(2) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (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
Background: The Prosecution's Allegations
Nature of the Alleged Scheme
As per the prosecution's case, the de facto complainant was allegedly induced — through Zoom presentations and WhatsApp communications — to enrol in a money-circulation and luxury-product business being operated under the name and style of M/s. Indi Konnect Ventures Private Limited (IGNITE). The alleged business model was structured on a binary/pyramid framework, whereby members were promised high financial returns and commissions upon purchasing products and recruiting further members.
The company was allegedly projected as being affiliated with an international entity, with a view to lending corporate legitimacy and credibility to the scheme. On the basis of such representations, the complainant was allegedly induced to purchase an 18K gold pendant and was directed to make payment through Demand Drafts. She accordingly obtained Demand Drafts amounting to Rs.59,175/- and Rs.2,623/-, totalling Rs.61,798/-. These Demand Drafts were allegedly instructed to be sent by courier to a paying guest (PG) accommodation in Bengaluru, rather than to the company's stated office address.
Role Attributed to the Petitioner
During investigation, the prosecution alleged that Accused Nos. 3 to 8, acting in conspiracy with one another, collected amounts from multiple victims by promising high returns through IGNITE. Based on statements of Accused Nos. 7 and 8, the prosecution alleged that:
- M/s. Indi Konnect Private Limited / IGNITE was incorporated at the instance of the petitioner (Accused No. 9) and Accused No. 4
- The said company was projected as a sub-franchise of IGNITE
- The petitioner and Accused No. 4 exercised control over and transferred funds collected from investors
- Accused Nos. 7 and 8 allegedly received remuneration for activities relating to the company's incorporation
The prosecution also relied upon an additional confession statement of Accused No. 4 to allege that the petitioner arranged Accused Nos. 7 and 8 to act as Directors of the company and planned its registration with the Registrar of Companies (ROC).
Arguments Advanced by the Petitioner
Advocate Rajender Khanna, appearing for the petitioner, placed the following contentions before the Court:
Absence of Direct Overt Act
- No specific overt act of inducement, cheating, collection or receipt of money was attributed directly to the petitioner
- The petitioner's alleged role was confined to facilitating incorporation of M/s. Indi Konnect Ventures Private Limited and arranging persons to act as directors
- The petitioner was not named in the original FIR and was subsequently implicated primarily on the basis of co-accused statements