The High Court · 2025

2. Sri. Yugandhar Vadapally, S/o. Vishnumurthi (Late), aged 45 years, Occ: Software Employee, R/o. Sai Thirumala Residence, Flat No. 101, Street No. 2, T arnaka, Hyderabad-s000 1 7. ...RESPONDENT'DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner /A3 in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No 239512024, of P.S. Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad Under Sections. 66-C,66-D tTA-2000-2008,318(4),319(2),336(3),338,340(2) BNS. in The Court of Xll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad, considering the petitioners occupation and his negligible role in the purported offense. ln the pursuit of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. MD. FASIUDDIN, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: I I I I I I I I l t i ! i I j THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION IIo.tot91 of 2O2S ORDER: This Criminal petition is liled under Section 4g2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha S:rnhita, 2023 (for short .BNSSJ for grant of pre_ arrest b;ril to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.2395 of 2025 before the Cyber Crimes police Station, Hyderabad.

2. Th.e brief fact.s of the case are that on OT.LO.2O24, ttre de.facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he received a phone c.all from one Neha, who became his friend and claimed to be working at Cognizant. She gradually gained his trust through WhatsApp chats and suggested that he invest by trading on the website m.catalystmarketsfx.com. Subsequently, the de facto complai:rant invested Rs. 1,70,O00/-, and was shown a profrt of 2,OI,OOO USD. When he attempted to wirhdraw the funds, he was asked to pay Rs. 4,82,4OO/- as tax. After paying this amount, he was fur,*rer demanded to pay Rs. t,4l,g2o/- as an exchange fee. Neha then showed him proof that she had paid Rs. 66,920/_. The complainant paid Rs.75,0OO/- but was still asked to pay 3,326 USD. It was then that the de facto complainant realized he had 2 SKS' J Crl.P.No.1Ol91of 2025 beencheated-Consequently,herequestedthepolicetotake necessary action against the accused persons'

3.Basedonthecomplaint,thepoticeregisteredacaseacasein Crime No.2395 of 2024 at Cyber Crimes Police Station' Hyderabad' fortheoffencespunishableunderSections66-c,66-DITA-2oo0- 2OO8, 318(4), 319(21,336(3)' 338' 340(21 ot the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS)againstaccusedNos.lto6.AccusedNos.2to6 werearrestedono8.|l.2o24,whileAccusedNo.lisshownas absconding. The petitioner herein is accused No' 3'

4.HeardMr.M.D.Fasiuddin,learnedcounselforpetitionerand SriSyedYasarMamoon,learnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorfor respondent State'

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitionerhasnocriminalantecedents,isnotahabitualoffender, and is innocent of the allegations levelled against him' He is willing to cooperate with the investigation, and custodial interrogation is notnecessary.[twasfurthersubmittedthatA3andhisentire family, including his parents and siblings' reside in the same locality,andtherefore,thereisnopossibilityofthepetitioner absconding.Thepetitionerhasbeenimplicatedinthiscasesolely basedontheconfessionalstatementsofAccusedNos'1'2'3'5' and 6. f I 3 SKS, J Crl.P.No.l019l of 2025

5.1. Lesrned counsel further placed reliance on the following judgmen'-s:

11. In Slddhc;ram So;tlingappa Mhetre us. State of Mahar,shtral, the Honble Supreme Court emphasized that personal liberty should not be curtailed unless absolutely necessary and that arrest should be an exception. In Arnesh Kumar as- Stdte oJ Biharz, the Apex Court cautioned against unnecessary arrests in cases punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. lu. In P. Chidambaram us. Directorate of Enforcements, the court held that even in economic offences, bail can be granted if the accused is cooperating with the investigation. 1V In D..K. Ba.su as. State of West Bengala, the Hon,ble supreme court laid down guidelines and safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. r 12011) l. scc 694 2 (20r4l {} SCC 273 3 (2019)1) SCC 24 4 (t997l' L SCC 416 4 , Crl.P.No.l019l of 2025 SKS, J In view of the above, learned counsel prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the petitioner is involved in five other cybercrime cases registered across various states, including North Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarat, and details of theSe cases have been placed on record. [t was further submitted that an earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was already dismissed by this Court, and there are no changed circumstances warranting a different view. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, as he is alleged to have supplied 6O bank accounts and received substantial amounts of money from innocent individuals, thereby cheating them. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present Criminal Petition-

7. Having regard to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record, the allegation against the petitioner is that he supplied 6O bank accounts for online transactions. It is also noted that the petitioner is involved in five other criminal cases across India. Since the present petition is for anticipatory t / // i _5 SKS, J Crl.P.No.l019t of 2O25 bail, thr: criminal antecedents of the petitioner must be duty considered. As seen from the record., the petitioner has a history of involverrLent in multiple cases. [n view of the above facts and circumsl-ances, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipar:ory bail at this stgge.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed M;.scellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd,- NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Stertion House Officer, Police Station Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad District. 3. One CC to Sri. MD. FASIUDDIN, Advocate [OPUC]. 4. Two COs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderrabad [OUT].

5. Two CD Copies TTS/PSL W / HIGH COURT DATED: 2210812025 ORDER CRLP.No.101tl1 ot 202i lHE S t1 () 2 2 JAil 2028 ;P -. 1::l \i\-j r,,.: -':l\?)i' CRIMINAL PE:TIT|ON lS DtSMISSED 1 ) 6 $