Ahsan Khan v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

arguments of SRI DUGGIRALA SUBASH Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, and the Court made the following ORDER: APHCO10320352025 E#E] I'[ =.IT== -i Ei =:T+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA-VAT! [3521] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE'DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6609/2025 Between : Ahsan Khan u.PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.DUGGIRALA SUBASH counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for brevity [the Cr.P.C.I)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity tthe BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.7 on bail in Crime No.63 of 2025 of Mandapeta Town Police Station, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS and Section 66-D the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008. I 2 i i-

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 03.03.2025, at about 21:45 hours, the complainant, Nagarapu Jyothirmai, aged 27 years, a UPSC aspirant and resident of Mandapeta Town, lodged a complaint stating that she was introduced to the alleged fraudsters through a WhatsApp group named TRG Financial Academy, which,offered financial investment classes. ln December 2024, they convinced her to download an ap'plication named "Axis Bank Securities," which appeared to be+SEBl-registered and legitimate. She initially invested an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- starting from 23rd December 2024, along with additional amounts for IPO subscriptions, paying Rs.1,00,000/-for each IPO in late December. Following her investinents, the accused demanded various additional payments, including alleged tax amounts, citing errors i,n transaction amounts. Eventually, her account was frozen on the pretext of incorrect bank details, and further payments were demanded, including Rs. 9,88,000/- on 9{h January. On each occasion, she complied and made the requested payments, amounting in total {o Rs. 62,001000/-.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the material on record.

4. Sri Duggirala Subash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits oJiv that the petitioner herein is © indirect victim of this online organised crime -and Z/:/ he is -only share his bank account to the main culprits and he is not involved in the case and he was only paid an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards share of profits. Moreover, the petitioner has been langu,ishing in jail for the past 92 -ap c- days and he is an indefeasible right of getting bail and urged to allow the petition.

5. Perconfra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the investigation is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the baI'I petition.

6. As seen from the record, the petitioner has given his bank account to the main accused in this case for trading purpose in exchange for promised monthly payments or a share in profits and he received initially an amount of Rs.10,000/-and later he came to know that Mazhar and Farhan under Anand's direction has siphoned approximately Rs.35,00,000/- through the account and his bank account was frozen by the back due to involvement of cyber fraud.

7. Be that as it may, the petitioner herein has been injudicial custody for the past 92 days and the charge sheet is not yet been filed, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail.

8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accu-sed No.7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five ThoLlsand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.7 shall appear' before the Station House Officer, Mandapeta Town Police Station, , I Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, on every Saturday i`n between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by,the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner/Accused No.7 shall not leave-the limits of the I District without prior permission from the learned Judicial First, class Magis+Irate, A[amuru. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.7 shall not corTlmit Or indulge in commissi6n of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.7 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The petitioner/ACcused No.7 shall not, directly or indire6{ly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her . from disclosing such facts to the court or {o any police officer/ SD/-M.SRiNIVAS ASS EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Station House Office.r, Mandapeta Police Station, Dr.B R Ambedkar Konaseema District.

2. The Judicial FI-rSt Class Magistrate at AIamuru.

3. The Superintendent, central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.

4. One CC to SRI. DUGGIRALA SUBASH, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

6. One spare copy KN f `\ HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:16/07/2025