Telangana High Court grants limited transit anticipatory bail in Bolla Ramakrishna Vs State of Telangana

Background of the petition

The Telangana High Court, in Bolla Ramakrishna Vs State of Telangana, dealt with a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner sought transit anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 73 of 2026 registered at the Cyber Police Station, Panchkula, Haryana.

The FIR had been lodged for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319, 336(3), 338 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), arising from an alleged cyber fraud where large sums were diverted from a complainant firm’s account to multiple bank accounts, including the account of a company in which the petitioner had earlier been a Director.

The petitioner approached the Telangana High Court apprehending arrest, although he had not yet been shown as an accused in the said FIR. His limited prayer was for temporary protection so that he could safely approach the competent court in Haryana for appropriate relief.

Prosecution case and factual matrix

According to the complaint and the FIR:

  • On 06.07.2026, the office laptop and WhatsApp account of the complainant’s husband’s firm, M/s. R.S. Construction, were allegedly hacked.
  • By impersonating the husband of the complainant associated with that firm, the perpetrator allegedly caused Rs.3,16,00,000/- to be transferred from the firm’s bank account to four different bank accounts.
  • Out of this total amount, Rs.80,00,000/- was stated to have been credited on 07.08.2026 to the bank account of M/s. Punapureddi Pakashastralu Private Limited.
  • The cyber crime was registered as Crime No. 73 of 2026 by the Haryana Police at the Cyber Police Station, Panchkula.

The company M/s. Punapureddi Pakashastralu Private Limited became a focal point in the investigation because a portion of the alleged fraudulent funds was traced to its account. As per the prosecution, the digital trail of transactions and the role of persons involved in the company remained under active investigation.

Petitioner’s position and grounds for seeking transit anticipatory bail

Petitioner’s role in the company

The petitioner, Bolla Ramakrishna, put forth the following key assertions through his counsel:

  • He was not currently shown as an accused in FIR No. 73 of 2026.
  • He had been associated with M/s. Punapureddi Pakashastralu Private Limited in two capacities:
    • As a financial investor holding 50% of the shareholding, and
    • As a Director from August 2024 until 10.07.2026.
  • His resignation from the directorship had been duly filed and recorded with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and was reflected in official company records.

Apprehension of arrest

The petitioner’s counsel stated that:

  • In the same crime, the Managing Director and another Director of the company had already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
  • The petitioner had been informed that the investigating agency was inclined to proceed against all persons connected with the company.
  • Although his name did not presently figure as an accused in the FIR, he had a reasonable apprehension that he might be arrested or subjected to coercive measures by the police in connection with the said case.

Limited relief sought

The petitioner clarified that:

  • He intended to avail himself of the appropriate remedies before the jurisdictional court in Haryana, where the FIR was registered.
  • His concern was that he might be taken into custody while in transit or before being able to move the competent court.
  • He, therefore, requested the Telangana High Court to grant transit anticipatory bail, strictly limited in time, to protect him from arrest during this interim phase.

State’s response before the Telangana High Court

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State, submitted that: