The High Court · 2025

Cyberabad Through Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/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 direct the respondent to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest relating to the Crime No.43/2025, pending on the file of EOW P.S. Cyberabad on any terms and conditions . This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A VENKATA RAMAIAH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG/) on behalf of the sole Respondent . The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJA $A CRIMINAL PETITION No. 13597 OF 2O2 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Sr:t:li 'n '482 of Bharatiya Nagzrrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lry r1'r pe tit.ioner sccking anticipatory bail rn connection with Crir r I No 43 of 20'25 of EOW Police Station, Cyberabad. The off e: :es allegcd agerinst thc petitioner are under Scr:tions 3 18(4), 3 I ( (2), 3 1 6(2), 3Io(5), 335, 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of BharatiSra Nr I 're Sanhita' 2023 and Sections 43, r1w.66,66C and 66D c't nformation Technologi Act and Section 5 of the Telangana ) otection of Depositors and F-inancial Establishment Act, 1999 '

2. The lacts of the case are that on 29 07 ''-2') l5 zrt 17OO hours, a petition was received from the complainan' Bura Gowri Shankar, through the DCP, trOW, Cyberabad. He rLleged Lhat he and many others were victims of a large-scale fi I rncial fraud orchestrated by Gaddam Venkata Rao (who falsel1' : aimed to be Director of M/s IIT Capital Technologies) and Ga ldam Venu Gopal (who posed as Proprietor ol M/s A.V. Solrr' ons), along with their associates. Between March 2023 and .J''r y 2025, th'e accused ran a Ponzi. scheme disguised as Al-bastc investment 2 platforms, using fake websites, forged SEBI and stock exchange registrations, and fabricated certificates to gain public trust. They conducted seminars across multiplc cities, falscly promising 7ok rnonthly returns through non-existent Ai stock prediction software. The complainant invested Rs.23 takhs but received only Rs.3 lakhs, incurring a loss of Rs.20 lakhs. Investigations revealed that over 10O victims Iost several crores, with 17 known victims [osing Rs.S crores collectivel],_ The accused used multiple bank accounts to collect funds and diverted them for personal use, including property, gold, and Iuxury purchases through benami transactions. It is further alleged that in the statement of Gaddam Venkata Rao dated

30.06.2025, he admitted diverting Rs.2O crores-Rs. lO crores to Atmakur Sujandeep and Rs.1O crores to Dr. Khame Singh through fake softrvare deals. They creatcd false documents, destroyed digital evidence, shut down websites, and threatened victims to avoid detection. It was also found that the accused continued similar fraudulent activities under a new entiQr, Srivas Analytical India Pvt. Ltd.. through the website tradeonnumbers.com. As such, complainant requested to take necessary action against the accused basing on which the police registered [he case against the accused for the above offences. 3 3- Heard Sri A Venkata Ramaiah, learned cotlrt e1 for lhe petitiolrer and Sri D.Arun Kurnar, learned Addit-i'r tal Public Prosccutor appearing lor the respondent State'

4. The lczrrned counsel for the petitioncr submlt ( main allegalions in this case are against Accuserl I'l r,r,ho had allegedly cngaged in unfair trardc prrt committed fraud by misappropriating investors C that the rs. 1 to 3. tices and funds for personal use- A notice under Sections 94 and 179 I the BNSS u.as issuerl to the petitioner, which was challenged 30576 of 2025. Altcr hling of the writ petitiolr submrtted a mclrlo bcfore the I-Additional Distric:t r W.P. No. the policr: i: Sessions Juclge, Ranga Redtll', seeking to add the petitioner Ls Accused No.4 and rcquested pcrmission for his arrest arr custodial intcrrogation. However, the petitioner had hirLs < f invesled mone-v in the accused company and had lodged i complaint with the concerned authority regarding fraud ' It statecl that petitioner was associated only with 'as further a separate website named 'srimaata,' which he had launched 'r rd operated inclependentll', and had no connection with he alleged fraudulent establishments. The petitioner is current y ernployed as an Executive Engineer with A.P.GENCO in /ijavawada. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitio I )1-. 4

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the petitioner herein is a public scrvilnt u,orking as Deputl, Executive Chemist, AP GENCO, projected himself as a reputed officer and lured many investors from Vijayawada into a subsidiary network of 'Srimaata'. The petitioner himself admits that he also invested in IIT Capital Tech and encouraged others to invest after getting his returns. Several colleagues and relatives of the pctitloner invested amounts after seeing his rcturns which rtself sho\]r,s active inducement by the petitioner. The petitioner herein is not a mere victim but he is a facilitator of thc fraudulent netu.ork. The petitioner herein collected Rs.19.53 Crores from 51 depositors and paid only Rs.0.94 Crores. He further submitted that when a statutory notice was issued to lhc pctitioner, instead of attending, he filed writ petition before this Court in order to avoid investigation and huge amount of Rs,1OO0/ Crores is involved in this case, as such, his custodial interrogalion is necessary to find out the funds, crypto currency and digital assets. If petitioner is granted bail it may hamper the investigation. Hence, prayed to dismiss this petition. I I ' ! t i i ! i I I 6 I i 1 i I I i ! i ir' : €1:..85€ 5

6. Consiclering thc submissions made and the r record, the contention of petitioner herein is that he connectecl with the allegcrl allegations and hc I sen,ant, whereas, the rccord shou's that being a pul petilioner instigatcd the victims to invest arnol I accusccl companlr. The allegation against this petit i zrterial on is no u'a1' a public ic sen,ant. ts in the )l]ef secms to be senous econonlic offence. As such, this CourL grJnl bail lu I hr nr! ilioner and the samc is i dcclincs to rblc t.o be dismisscd. 7 Accorclingll', rlrc Criminal Petition is dismissc'1 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending rlLall stand ckrsecl To, SD/- C.DEEPIKA AS!; STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magis rate, Ranga Reddy District L.B.Nagar

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police EOW P.S. Cybe,r rbaci . 3 One CC to SRI A VENKATA RAMAIAH Advocate IOPL C] 4 Two CCs to the ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ligh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies It, TL/PSL -r.rt..\ 1,.... \.,'\ a',(' r "-t ! il?$ .a /,,,... /, .,: i (-) \l- \ -/, HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 ORDER CRLP.No.13597 oI 2025 DISMISISNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION. iI