Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11194
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Mallavalli Dinesh @ Dhinesh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5709 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y. V. Anil Kumar
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Pre-arrest bail granted due to insufficient evidence in original FIR and emphasis on cooperation with law enforcement.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 111(1), 112(1), 318(4), 319(2), and 61(2); Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66C and 66D; AP Gaming Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Pre-arrest bail sought by accused charged with online cricket betting - Court noted that the petitioners' names were not in the original FIR and that the involvement was not established - Bail granted with conditions to ensure cooperation with the police. (Paras 6-8)
(B) Bail - Grant and consideration - The court considers the nature of allegations and the petitioners' roles before granting bail, emphasizing their fixed abode and compliance with court conditions. The learned Single Judge previously ruled that Section 111(2) does not apply to unauthorized betting. (Paras 6-7)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners accused of online betting without initial fir mention. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides on the bail application. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observation on the nature and stage of investigation. (Para 5) |
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 4 80 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for brevity [the BNSS '), seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail {o 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 I the BNSJ), Section 66C and 66D of Information Act, 2000 (for short fthe lT Act') and Section 3 and 4 of AP Gaming AlcA.
J=l._ r -,.a e._-szsfi
2, The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused have indulged I-n onlI-ne 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. Srl-Y.V. Anl'l Kumar, learned counsel for the petI'tiOnerS, Submits that the petitI'O'nerS have not committed any offence. They were falsely implicated in the case. They are the sole breadwinners of their families. They have a fl'xed abode. They will not evade from the clutches of the law. They would abI-de by any condI-lions tO be imposed by this Court. The names of the petjtI|OnerS Were not OrigI-nally mentioned in the FIR; later, their names were referred to jn the altered FIR on 07.05.2025. Even in the remand report of A.3 to A.6, there was no reference about the petl-tioners. 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 petitI'OnerS, I'n 'COnSPiraCy With the Other accused, have been conducting online crI-Cket betting and luring many people into the trap Parting with huge amounts in the betting. As a result, gulII'ble individuals have been losing considerable amounts of money. The investigatI'On iS at a crucial stage, and he urged the court to dl-smiss the bail petition.
*=- `.~ .i I.zjrf As seen from the record, A.3 has already been enlarged on regular I-_
bail. ln fact, in the fI'rSt 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 abou.I the petitioners. Petitioner No.2/Accuse,d No.8 is the brother of A.3. The alleged offence committed by the other accused is conducting online cricket betting. Section 111 of fthe BNS' deals with the commission of organized crimes. ln that section, the offence of (online cricket)r~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 fthe BNS' stipulates a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum punishment of seven years, along with a fine. lt is \
-\ pertinent to mention that the learned Single Judge of this Court in ts ,i _/
