IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7975 OF 2026 DATE: 29.05.2026 BETWEEN: Dr. Shiva Kumar Sangarappan @ S. Sivakumar ….Petitioner/A.3 AND State of Telangana, Rep. by Inspector of Police, EOW Team-V11, Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad, Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. ….Respondent ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.3 in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.54 of 2026 of Central Crime Station Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 344 r/w. 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The facts of the case are that the de facto complainant-Sandadi Venkateshwar Reddy, lodged a complaint before police stating that he along with his wife Smt. Sridevi Sandadi, established M/s. Vannsh Life Sciences Private Limited in 2016 over an extent of 5.5 acres at Visakhapatnam, and commenced manufacturing cancer-related medicines in December 2018, 2

with a corporate office in Banjara Hills, Hyderabad; he serves as the Managing Director. To handle financial and statutory matters, they appointed Mr.Leela Sundaram as Statutory Auditor and Mr. N.V. Ramana Rao as Finance Officer, who managed the company’s day-to-day affairs. Subsequently, a Japanese company, A.R. Brown Co. Ltd., invested in the company and acquired 30% shareholding, while the complainant and his wife retained 70%, with all communications handled by the said Finance Officer and Auditor. Recently, upon verifying the share holding pattern, the complainant discovered that his and his wife’s share had reduced to 51%, while 9.5% shares each were shown in the names of Mr. N.V. Ramana Rao and Mr. S. Shiva kumar, without his knowledge or consent. On questioning them, they failed to provide any explanation and allegedly threatened him; the Auditor also failed to clarify. Further inquiry revealed that share certificates had been split and transferred on 20.04.2022in favour of the said individuals without authorization, and that Ms. Nemalikanty Anuradha, who was appointed as Company Secretary only on 10.01.2023, had signed and authenticated those documents despite not holding any position at the relevant time, indicating collusion. The complainant alleges that19% of his original shareholding was fraudulently transferred without consideration, consent, or valid documentation, constituting offences such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, falsification of records, and criminal conspiracy. Hence, the complainant requested to take legal action against the accused persons. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not involved in the day-to-day financial or administrative affairs. It is contended that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence, and that Section 316(5) of BNS is not applicable to him as he neither handled nor was entrusted with the complainant’s funds, financial records, or assets, nor he dishonestly used or converted any such property for his personal gain; the case has been falsely filed to harass him. It is further submitted that, as per the remand report dated 13.04.2026 relating to A-1, no specific allegations are made against the petitioner except a due diligence report is issued by the Company Secretary, which is not legally tenable. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no connection to the alleged offence, and that the share transactions were solely between the complainant, A-1 and A-2, and no role is attributed to the petitioner. It is further contended that there is apprehension of arrest of the petitioner and in the event of arrest, petitioner would face serious hardship and that he undertakes to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed bail contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition. 4 6. Petitioner herein is arrayed as A-3 in the above crime and he is a non-executive minority shareholder/Technical Director of the Company. The allegation against him is that he was instrumental in the fraudulent alteration of shares, having illegally transferred 19% of the original 70% shareholding to N.V. Ramana Rao (A.1). Further A.1 was already arrested and released on bail. 7. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record and the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer/ACP of EOW Team-VII, Central Crime Station (CCS), DD, Hyderabad within three weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for the like sum each. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 05.00 p.m., on every Monday for a period of eight

(8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier and thereafter, as and when required. 5 iii. The petitioner shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482 (2) of BNSS and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J Date: 29.05.2026 NDS/KRK 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7975 OF 2026 DATE: 29.05.2026 NDS/KRK

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7975 OF 2026 DATE: 29.05.2026 BETWEEN: Dr. Shiva Kumar Sangarappan @ S. Sivakumar ….Petitioner/A.3 AND State of Telangana, Rep. by Inspector of Police, EOW Team-V11, Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad, Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. ….Respondent ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.3 in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.54 of 2026 of Central Crime Station Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 344 r/w. 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The facts of the case are that the de facto complainant-Sandadi Venkateshwar Reddy, lodged a complaint before police stating that he along with his wife Smt. Sridevi Sandadi, established M/s. Vannsh Life Sciences Private Limited in 2016 over an extent of 5.5 acres at Visakhapatnam, and commenced manufacturing cancer-related medicines in December 2018, 2

with a corporate office in Banjara Hills, Hyderabad; he serves as the Managing Director. To handle financial and statutory matters, they appointed Mr.Leela Sundaram as Statutory Auditor and Mr. N.V. Ramana Rao as Finance Officer, who managed the company’s day-to-day affairs. Subsequently, a Japanese company, A.R. Brown Co. Ltd., invested in the company and acquired 30% shareholding, while the complainant and his wife retained 70%, with all communications handled by the said Finance Officer and Auditor. Recently, upon verifying the share holding pattern, the complainant discovered that his and his wife’s share had reduced to 51%, while 9.5% shares each were shown in the names of Mr. N.V. Ramana Rao and Mr. S. Shiva kumar, without his knowledge or consent. On questioning them, they failed to provide any explanation and allegedly threatened him; the Auditor also failed to clarify. Further inquiry revealed that share certificates had been split and transferred on 20.04.2022in favour of the said individuals without authorization, and that Ms. Nemalikanty Anuradha, who was appointed as Company Secretary only on 10.01.2023, had signed and authenticated those documents despite not holding any position at the relevant time, indicating collusion. The complainant alleges that19% of his original shareholding was fraudulently transferred without consideration, consent, or valid documentation, constituting offences such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, falsification of records, and criminal conspiracy. Hence, the complainant requested to take legal action against the accused persons. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not involved in the day-to-day financial or administrative affairs. It is contended that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence, and that Section 316(5) of BNS is not applicable to him as he neither handled nor was entrusted with the complainant’s funds, financial records, or assets, nor he dishonestly used or converted any such property for his personal gain; the case has been falsely filed to harass him. It is further submitted that, as per the remand report dated 13.04.2026 relating to A-1, no specific allegations are made against the petitioner except a due diligence report is issued by the Company Secretary, which is not legally tenable. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no connection to the alleged offence, and that the share transactions were solely between the complainant, A-1 and A-2, and no role is attributed to the petitioner. It is further contended that there is apprehension of arrest of the petitioner and in the event of arrest, petitioner would face serious hardship and that he undertakes to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed bail contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition. 4 6. Petitioner herein is arrayed as A-3 in the above crime and he is a non-executive minority shareholder/Technical Director of the Company. The allegation against him is that he was instrumental in the fraudulent alteration of shares, having illegally transferred 19% of the original 70% shareholding to N.V. Ramana Rao (A.1). Further A.1 was already arrested and released on bail. 7. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record and the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Station House Officer/ACP of EOW Team-VII, Central Crime Station (CCS), DD, Hyderabad within three weeks from today, and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for the like sum each. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 05.00 p.m., on every Monday for a period of eight

(8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier and thereafter, as and when required. 5 iii. The petitioner shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482 (2) of BNSS and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the case. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J Date: 29.05.2026 NDS/KRK 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7975 OF 2026 DATE: 29.05.2026 NDS/KRK