The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminzrl Petition is filed under Ser:t i tn 482 ol Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (tor sl rrt 'BNSS') sccking anticipalory bail to the petitioner/ acc Lrs ( C No.2 in Crime No. 169 ol 2025 on the file of Station House Of icer, Cyb<'r Crimcs Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for . rc offenccs punishable under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2l', 3O8 'r ,), 316 (2), 33i1, 336 (3) read u,ith 340 (2) read with SectiorL I (5) of thc Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS') r nd Sccrion 66-D ol the Information Technologr Act.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 2'- )1.2025 at I I :30 Pm the de /acto complainant by namc l/ 's. Saksh i Kondzrkindhi lodged a complaint at P.S. Cyber Crrr res statirrg that in .Ianuary, 2024 shre saw an ad in Linkedin iL Ld joir-rcd a Wh:rtsApp group claiming to be linked to Hems Sec.t rirics led lx' onc Aislra Sithika and the group claimed to help reople ancl mak<: money by trading. Believing the promises m: r c by Aisha thc dc facro cornplainant joined the trading class : atform vi:r suspicious link and as guided by them she starl(] I investirrg moncy and in the beginning she invested Rs.S,OO0 / rnd on thc advise of Aishi: shc kept on adding more funds. Evr r tual1r,, shc 2 invested more than Rs.a6,00,000/- by transferring money from her bank account to various bank accounts and Upl Ids shared by Aisha and she was toid that she will earn over Rs.71,0O,0O0/- in prohts and she was asked to pay 2Oo/o commission to withdraw the money and alter paying the said amount she was demanded to pay another 2Oolt as tax and the de facto complainant came to know that she was cheated. Basing on the said complaint, a case in crime No. 169 of 2O2S was registered.

3. Heard Ms. Elipe Shanthasree, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-S tate.

4. Learned counsel for the petiLioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was lalsely implicated in the above crime. It is further submitted that there are no specific allegations much less specitic allegations leveled against the petitioner and petitioner's name $.as not mentioned in the complaint. However, the petitioner was implicated as accused No.2 basing upon the confession stateme nt given by the co-accused/accused No.3 and the same is not permissible under law especially as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short 'BSA'). The confession statement recorded by the police r,l,hen the accused (- ,/ J No.3 was in their custody, and the said confessior statement is not permissible under law. Learned counsel fut 1 rer submits that the de facto complainant has not made arL. allegations against the petilioner nor the petitioner has not eceived any amount from the de facto complainant. The petitior er is no way concerned u.ith the account No. 14141201O001t

17. Even according to the transaction, the de facto complai I an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- only but, wherea; rnt invested as per the complaint todged by Lhe de facto cornplaint, tht: alleged that the petitioner and other accused ch r prosecution ated the de f:rcto complainant to a tune of Rs.47,O0,00O/-, in t: : absence of anv iota of evidcncc-

5. Learnecl counsel vehemently contended that the alleged allegations are perkrining to the year 2024 wlrereal' complainant lodged the compiaint on 2O.Ol.2O2S :. the de facto -ler lapse o[ more than one \.ear even without explaining any re . sons for Lhe said delay. It is further submitted that the peL t oner is not having any other criminal antecedents and he is th r only bread u,ir-rner of his farnilv and eeking his livelihood by c ring private job and he shail abide by rhe conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court, and he is ready to coope - .te r;r.ith the inr.cstigation, il anv. Hence, the petitioner . mal be grantcd anticlpatory bail. 4

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed grave offence and the petitioner and other accused involved in cyber fraud relating to hnancial operations. There are specific allegations leveled against petitioner and other accused that they colluded with each other and collected huge amount from the de facto complainant through bank account No.141412010001817. The de facto complainant suffered huge ltnancial loss in thc hands o[ the petitioner and other accused. Therefore, the ir-rgredients under Section 3O8 (6) and 338 of BNS are applicablc to the petitioner.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor basing on the rvritten instructions furnished by the Inspeclor of Police, Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad stated that the bank account pcrtaining to the present crime was reflected in the NCRT portat zrnd the said bank account was involved in 15 other cases. [t is lurlher submitted that the investigation is in progress and iI lhe pctitioner/ accused is granted anticipatory bail at this slage, he r.",ill interfere with the investigation and also influence the witnesses. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the rcspective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it rdveals that the de facto complainant in her compiaint ,a- ) specifically mentioned that she suffered huge finz r cial Ioss in the hands of petitioner and other accused to r he tune of Rs.46,87 ,5461 -. The petitioner and other ar:, used have committed c1.ber lraud relating to financial opera -ions. The record further reveals that the petitioner along with other accused Nos. 1,2,3 and 6 received the huge amoun. 'rom the de /acfo complainant through Union Bank which was rrovided by accused No.6 i.e., account bearing No. 1414l2Olt( O1817 and the said amounts werc r,r,ithdrawn and mis-approp- ated by the petitioner and other accused.

9. The rccorcl further reveais that the acco; rt number mentioned in thc prcscnt crime tvas also includecl i r the NCRT Portal. Accorcling to thc prosccution, the account cl1 atecl by tl-re pctitioner ancl olhcr accused in the present crime ,r in another 15 cascs. llven according to learne J as involved Additional Public Prosecutor investigzrtion is under progress. t is settled larn' that in scrious offcnccs involving cyber crimerj large scale fraud/hnancizrl crimes, granting anticipatory bail to , he accused persons rl'ould dcfeat thc interest of not only the ,ictrms but also causc prc_ludice to thc society at large. Even a :cording to the lcarned Adclitional Ptrblic Prosecutor investigat ( n is undcr progrcss 6

10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances o[ the case as well as the gravity of the offence , this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 1 1. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. AMMAJI EPUTY REGIST S OFFICER To, l.ThelXAdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClassatKukatpally,Cyberabad' Ranga Reddy District

2. The-Station House Officer, Cyberabad Police Station, Cyberabad' Ranga Reddy District.

3. One CC to SRl. SHANTHASREE ELIPE Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two Copies to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies PK,IDI- W. HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 ORDER CRLP.No.9513 of 2025 _ _-_.__:,. r:5 :\ rRt ) 2 3 tul Zo26 * o ( -.,. ,l ",a CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. w )r