Salirn v. State of U.P. and othersl, wh.erein it is held in paragraph Nos

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. through, P.S, Madhapur Cyberabad. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 480 & 483 of B N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimina.l Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime. No. 388 of 2025 of P.S. Madhapur, Cyberabad on the file of the X Addl Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, registered U/Sec. 308(5), 329(4), 351(2), 352, and 232 BNS, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri YEMMIGANUR SOMA SRINATH REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER ,,=,Y / THE HONONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.372 4 of 2o.25 ORDER: This ,}-irninal petition has been hl:rl under Sections 4BO and a8il of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sr,rraksha Sanhita, 2023 tBNS,S) by rhe petitioner/accused, seeking bail in Crime No.38g of 2O2S of Madhapr-rr police Station, Cyberab:ed rlo mmissionerate, registered tirr the offences urrcler Secl ions 3O8(S), 329(4), 351(2), 352 and 232 of the Bharatiyal N'ya1.a Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. Hr:ard I\4r. y. Soma Srinath Reddy, lr:errned counsel for the petitionr:r, and Mr. Syed yasar Mztmoon, learned Aclditior-rzrl I,ublic prosecutor appearing for rr:spondent_State. 3. Th e c: Lse of prosecution in brief is that thc de facto complainan. lodged a complaint on 1O.O3.2O25 stating that on the san.re cray at about 1.30 p.rn., r.r,rren hc was not present in t he off,rce, the petitioner carne t() his office and askcd to rn(.et .1 person of his staff artd when that person is not availabrr: in the office, the petitioner arrused his staff in hithy lemguage and threatened with dire consequences, ruined tris lite and his staff is liable to pay him and his staff 2 informed the said incident to him' Wtren I enqr.rired with the person for whorn ttre petitioner cajne ' he informed that he acted as a witness in F'I'R'No 1825 of 2C24 on the file of the CyberCrimePoliceStation,DDCCS,Hyderabadagainstthe petitioner, wtro was arrested and sent to jail' and later he was released on bail ald thereafter' ttre petitioner calling hirn over phone and threatening that his life is mined for tkre actions by the witnesses in the above crirne as such he is liable to pay amount and the petitioner sent ttrreatening messages on whatsa'pp trying to dissr'rade him from testifying against the petitioner and also to give the whereabouts of the other witnesses and when he refused' the petitioner ca'rne to ttre offrce in search of him and making an issue' 'fl:,e de facto cornplainant furtLrer stated that the action of the petitioner tras caused him and his staff an irnmense mental distress and fear for ttre safety and extortion by pr.rtting fear of life for all the witnesses of previous case' Hence' take action against the Petitioner' 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner tras not comrnitted the offence and he was falsely implicated in ttre present crime' Except th:-:ff:t"t "*,t* r'l r' ,,j..] , 3 Section 3O8(:l) of the BNS, the other offence:s levelled against the pel.itiorrer are punishable with an imp.risonment of less than s<:ven years. The petitioner threatened the employees of tLte de Jact o cctrnplainant, which does not corne within the meanrrrg o extortion. The de focto complainant has not stated that the petitioner dernanded the €unount. However, the police ir-r the remand case diaqz intentionally rnentioned that tbe pe,titioner demanded an amolrnt of Rs.60,OO,OOO/_ from L'W.2 irr the absence of any allegations in the cornplaint and also ir: I he absence of any iota of evi,lence. Hence, the ingreclienl s of Section 3Og(5) of the BNS are not applicable, in thc atrscnce of any allegations made in ttre cornplaint. Thc petitior-r(:r \vas arrested on O1.03.2025 and since then he is in judic:al custody. The petitioner is r:eady and will to co()per,ate with ttre investigation ald also abide by the conditions. .,,vhich are going to be imposecl by this Court. Thcrefirre, Jt<: prayed to release the petitioner on bail.

4.1. hr sr lpport of his contention, he relied upon the judgrnr:nt ,,f the Honl:le Sr.rprerne Court irt Salib @ Shatu @ 4 Salirn v. State of U.P. and othersl, wh.erein it is held in paragraph Nos.2O and 22, which reads as under '2O. We take notice of the fact that Section 386 of the IPC has also been invoked. Seclion 386 of the IPC relates to extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. Section 386 of the IPC runs as follows:

21. "Extortion has been defrned under Section 383 of the IPC, as follows:

22. So from the aforesaid, it is clear that one of the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that t].e victim must be induced to deliver to any person arly property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtalned by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting hirn or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this defrnition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury. The illustrations to the Section given in the IPC make this perfectlY clear."

5. Per coratra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has comrnitted grave offence t 2023 SCC Online SC 947 5 During thc r:ourse of investigation, LW.2 specifically stated that the p( titioncr dernanded an amount of Rs.60,OO ,OOO/ _, otheru,ise, trr: will ruin his life and also threatened thre office stalf of ttte de -facto complainant. The p-etitioner has involved in Crirnc \trc. 1 825 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 66(C), ,r6D. ()7 of the Information Technolog34 Act, 2OOg and Sections 7r,29,308(2), 318(4), 3Ig(21 and 351(2) of the BNS by the Cyb,::r Crime police Station, Hyderzrbad City ald also a rowd'y, shr:et rvas opened against him on O4.O1,.2Cl25 as per the proceetlings oi' the Commissioner of police, Hyderabad artcl later tlre said rowdy sheet was transft:rred to Madhapur Police Stat ion, Cyberabad Commissioner-etl.e. He further the petitioner ancl his family members on 2,1 .06 .)tO24 rvri tten an apologr' letter to o ne Sreya, wherein t,-re petition:r' hirnself stated that he cornrnitted several ,legar a(:ts and , rffences. However, subsequent to that, the p<:titioner u rrs cornrnrltted grave offence. The investigation is n()t yet conrpleted rend it is under progress. At this stage, if the petitionc:- is enlarged on bail, there is every chance to influent:e tl:e rr,,itnesses and interfere with the investigation. Ht:nce, the 1;e.titioner is not entitled for gra.l. of bail. srrbmitted thLat 6 a

5.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the jud.grnent of the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Sudha Singh w' The State of Uttar Pradesh and ANR2.

6. Having considered the riva-l sr-rbmissions rnade by the respective parties and after perusal of the rnaterial available on record, it reveals that there is specific allegation in tkre complaint ttrat on 1O.O3.2025, the petitioner has entered the office premises of tine d-e facto cornplainant and abused the staff in hlthy language and threatened with dire conseqllences. According to the prosecution, LW'2-Srinivas in the present case was acted as rnediator in Crirne No' 1825 of 2C24 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad City, wherein the petitioner was arrested and after release, bore grudge against LW.2-srinivas and threatened hirn through Whatsapp messages and also demanded arnount tkrat if he is not giving to pay the said arnount, he will threatened him with dire consequences. In the rernand case diary, it is specifrcally rnentioned that the petition er demanded an arnount of Rs.60,OO,OOO/- frorn LW'2-Srinivas' According to thelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutor,theinvestigationis under progress. The record further revea'ls that the 'z 2021 scc online 342 Y 7 petitiorrer i:; accused in Crirne No.1825 oI' 2024, which was registered ltr the olfences punishable under Sections under Sections 6L-,((l), 66D, 67 of the Inforrnation TechnologT Act, 2OO8 and -qe,:tions 7a, 79, 3O8(2), 318(4), a\19(2\ and 3S1(2) of the BNS by the Cyber Crirne Police Stzrtion, Hyderabad City and a.lso the Cornrnissioner of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioller on O4.O1.2O25 Later, the crime was transferi-ed to Madhapur I, Police Static,n through letter No.109/OWPS-CCPS/202S dated I 5.O I .:2025 by the Inspector of Polir:e, Cyber Crirne, Hvderaoad. and the sarne is placed along with the counter- affidavit. Taking into consideration ttre facts ald circurnstanc:es of the case and the gravity o1'the offence, this Corlrt i s n,rt inclined to grant bail, especially wlren the investigation is r-rnder progress.

7. A.ccordingly, the Crirninal petition is disrnissed. Miscel ..aneous applications, pending if any, shall stand clo sed //TRUE COPY// SD/. T.TIRUMA DEPUTY REG DEVI TRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3

4. 5. PrlPSl- The X Additional l\4etropolitan lrlagistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally. The Station House Offiber, tvladhapur Police Station, Cyberabad. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ,OUT r Oire CC to SRI \ EMITIIGANUR SOMA SRINATH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Tr,vo CD Cocies Yb- HIGH COURT DATED:011A4n025 ORDER CRLP.No.3724 ot 2025 ( q 5 o o 1H tTAr( 0 I APit ?uzs f 7 ) t I't,f Ct,€c. I i l i I I I I I / DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION , A v\ )4