Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6984
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Mallavalli Dinesh @ Dhinesh and Others – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No: 5709/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y V Anil Kumar
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court granted pre-arrest bail based on lack of initial naming in FIR and the investigative stage, ensuring stringent compliance conditions.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480, 483; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 111(1), 112(1), 318(4), 319(2), r/w 61(2); Information Act, 2000 - Sections 66C and 66D; AP Gaming Act - Pre-arrest bail - Petitioners accused in FIR for online cricket betting - Grant of bail considering no original reference to petitioners in FIR and advancements in investigation stage - Specified conditions for bail are set. (Paras 1 to 8)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Nature of allegations - The Court considers the potential threat posed by the petitioners and assures compliance with conditions set, aiming to facilitate ongoing investigations. (Paras 3 to 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners are accused in an FIR regarding online cricket betting, alleging involvement but not initially named in original FIR. The nature of the accusations and investigation progress raises concern over whether charges apply.
Findings of Court:
Pre-arrest bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure compliance and availability for investigation.
Issues: The main issues involve the scope of the sections of the BNSS relevant to unauthorized betting.
Ratio Decidendi: The judicial reasoning indicates that since the petitioners' names were not in the original FIR, the court finds substantial grounds to grant bail, especially given the absence of established offense under the initially applied sections.
Result: Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail under specified conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. pre-arrest bail application overview and prosecution context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments from both sides regarding the allegations and bail request. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. consideration of no original reference in fir regarding petitioners. (Para 6) |
| 4. granting of pre-arrest bail with specific conditions. (Para 7) |
| 5. final directives for bail conditions and consequences. (Para 8) |
ORDER
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 4 80 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS S ’), seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/A.2 and A.8 in FIR No.77 of 2025 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Section 111 (1), 112(1), 318(4), 319(2) r/w 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘ the BNS ’), Section 66C and 66D of Information Act, 2000 (for short ‘the IT Act’) and Section 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act .
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused have indulged in online cricket betting and alluring the valuable people to fall to their prey.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
4. Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence. They were falsely implicated in the case. They are the sole breadwinners of their families. They have a fixed abode. They will not evade from the clutches of the law. They would abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The names of the petitioners were not originally mentioned in the FIR; later, their names were referred to in the altered FIR on 07.05.2025. Even in the remand report of A.3 to A.6, there was no reference about the petitioners. The other accused have already been enlarged on bail, and urged to release the petitioners on pre-arrest bail.
5. Sri Neelotphal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that the petitioners, in conspiracy with the other accused, have been conducting online cricket betting and luring many people into the trap parting with huge amounts in the betting. As a result, gullible individuals have been losing considerable amounts of money. The investigation is at a crucial stage, and he urged the Court to dismiss the bail petition.
6. As seen from the record, A.3 has already been enlarged on regular bail. In fact, in the first FIR, there was no reference about the involvement of the present petitioners. Indeed, in the remand report of A.3 to A.6, there was no reference about the petitioners. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.8 is the brother of A.3. The alleged offence committed by the other accused is conducting online cricket betting. Section 111 of ‘the BNS ’ deals with the commission of organized crimes. In that section, the offence of (online cricket) betting does not find a place. The appropriate and relevant section is 112(1) of ‘the BNS ’, which contemplates unauthorized betting. Section 112 (2) of ‘the BNS ’ stipulates a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum punishment of seven years, along with a fine. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.3356 of 2025 also observed that Section 111 (2) of ‘the BNS ’
would not be applicable in case of unauthorized betting.
7. Taking into consideration the stage of the investigation, nature of allegations and the alleged role played by the petitioners, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners with some stringent conditions.
8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed with the following directions:
