The court emphasized the necessity to consider the absence of original charges against the petitioners while granting anticipatory bail.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 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 _/

CrI.P.No.3356 of 2025 also observed that Section 111 (2) of fthe BNS'

would not be applicable in case of unauthorized betting.

7. Taking into considerat'lon the stage of the investigation, nature of al]ega{ions and the a[[eged role played by I.he petitioners, this Court E5*=5*

deems i{ fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners with some stringent conditions.

8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed with the following directions:

a) ln the event of arrest of the petitioners, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each tO the Satisfaction Ot the arresting police officials;

b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation aS and When required;

c) The petitioners shall