The High Court · 2025

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana at Hyderabad. .RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS (previously Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C.) praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to ENLARGE the Petitioner/Accused No.05 on bail in connection with CRIME NO.36/2025 UNDER SECTTONS 126(2), 318(4), 336(3), 33S, 340(2), R^^/ 3(5), 111 BNS-2023 AND SEC 66-C & 66-D OF IT ACT OF CYBER-CRIME POLICE STATION. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohammed Sohail, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT rlOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TTYT)ERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT JI'STICE K. SUJANA . CRIMINAL PEIITIOII Ito.17O24 of 2O2S - 31st DAY OF ,7irIil Between: Mohammr:d Fardeen. t The State of Telangana, Through f'ublic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad. PETITIONER RESFONDENT ORDER This criminal Petition is filed seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who is arrayed as accused No.s in crime No.36 of 2025 br:fore the cyber crime Police Station, Nizamabad district, registered flor the offences punishable under sections 126(2,, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(21 of BNS r/w 3(5), 111 of BNS,, and Sections 65-C and D of IT Act. 2- The case of the prosecution is that de-facto complainant lodged a report before the Police, stating that on 2g.og-2o2s, wherein shre rcceived a phone call posing as a telecom department 2 employee from Bangalore, alleged that a new SIM card had been issued using her Aadhaar and that it was used for obscene calls- He referred her to a supposed Sub-Inspector, Sandeep Rao, at Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Bangalore. Later, de-facto complainant received a WhatsApp Video Call from a man in Police uniform introduced himself as a Sub-Inspector and sent her a fake FIR and documents linking her to a fraudster, Sadhakath Khan, allegedly involved in human traflicking and scams. He claimed Rs.3O Lakhs were transferred to her accounts part of the scam, though LW-OI denied received any such money. The caller said the case was h€rnded over to a CBI officer i.e. Jai Shankar from Mumbai, and she received another vid.eo call from a man posing as CBI oflicer i.e. Jai Shankar, who insisted the de-facto complainant and she transfer Rs.}8,OO,OOO/- for verilication, assuring the amount will be returned. Believing him, t}:re de-facto complainant cancelled her fixed deposit and as instructed, transferred Rs.18,OO,OOO/- on 29.O8.2025 from her SBI account. Later, de- facto complainant reaiiznd that she has been cheated and informed her son who lodged a report before the Cyber complaint through the portal. Basing on the complaint, poiice investigated the case and registered the case against the petitioner herein and other accused persons. I 3

2.1. Th,: main allegation against the petitioner herein is that the amount was deposited into the account of accused No.l. Thereafte:r, accused No.1 transferred an amount of Rs.8,54,9OOl- to the pr:titioner herein. The petitioner herein withdrew the said amount and handed it over to accused No.1. It is alleged that the petitioner herein acted in collusion with the other accused, and therefore he has been arrayed as accused No.S.

3. Heard Sri Mohammed Sohail, learned counsel for petitioner, and sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Rrblic Prosecutor appearinll for respondent - State.

4. Tht: contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the said allegations. It is contenderi that, only at the request of accused No.l., the petitioner withdrew the said amount and that he had no knowledge of the cheating allegedly committed by accused No.l or any other accused. It is further submitted that t.l.e other accused have already been granted bail by this Court. As against the allegation against a,:cused No.5, it is stated that he received only a meager amount e-nd has been in judicial custody since o2.1r.2o25. As \ \ such, a request is made to grant regular bail to the petitioner. t' 4

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitting that the allegations against t]re petitioner are serious in nature and that he is part of the conspiracy with the accused persons. Therefiore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, it appears that the petitioner herein has been in jail since 31.10.2025 and lhe petitioner is involved in another case including the present case. Therefore, considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner and also his previous involvement in similar crime, the petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/. L. LAKSHMI BABU //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR6 To Telangana Prohibition and Excise Court Nizamabad. SECTION OFFICER 1. The lV Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate tTrial of Cases under 2. The Vl Additional Junior First Judge-cum-CIass Magistrate I Court for Cyber- 3. The station House officer, cyber-crime police Station, Nizarnabad. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Teiangana at 5. One CC to Sri Mohammed Sohail, Advocate. tOpUCI 6. Two CD Copies Crime Cases, Nizamabad. Hyderabad. [OUT] Kanr/Plt HIGH COURT DATED:3111212025 ORDER CRLP.No.17024 ot 2025 THE S ( -) l! ii (J !t .,: ').. 1 I rr8 2026 ' i--' \-i ? DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1 ?u \