Court denied bail due to the serious nature of allegations in online betting fraud, highlighting potential for evidence tampering.

COMMON ORDER:

Since these criminal petitions are arising out of Crime No.16 of 2025, these criminal petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 9 in Crime No.16 of 2025 on the file of the P.S. Ibrahimpatnam, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111 (3), 318 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), Section 66 (D) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’) and Section 3 of Telangana Gaming Act, 1974 (for short ‘TG Act’).

3. Brief facts of prosecution case is that on 27.01.2025 the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he is a software employee and while checking cricket scores on the "Cricket Line Guru" app, he noticed advertisements for cricket betting displayed at the bottom of the screen. The advertisements were promoted by Kartikey Book (Kartikeya.com) and POWER 7777 and after unknowingly clicking on the links, he was redirected to whatsapp chats of Kartikey and Power online group, where they posted about online gaming. The accused provided various bank account details to deposit money and to participate in worldwide live games and sports on their website. The de facto complainant deposited large sum through multiple transactions by trusting accused persons and won several games. But he never received any payouts and concerned persons never run the group, delayed the process assuring him that money will be deposited soon and thereby the accused dishonestly cheated him and they defrauded him to a tune of Rs.1,25,90,349/-. Basing upon the said complaint above crime was registered.

4. Heard Mr.V.Agni Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.7672 of 2025, Mr.N.Venkataiah, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.7678 of 2025 and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offence and they were falsely implicated in the above crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Section 111 (3) of BNS are not attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that initially crime was registered for the offences under Sections 3 18 (4) of BNS and Section 3 of TG Act, later the police included Sections 111(3) of BNS, Section 66 (D) of the IT Act, though the said sections are not attracted against the petitioners. Even according to the remand case dairy, the entire allegations are levelled against the accused No.1 only. The only allegation levelled against accused Nos.2 to 6 is that accused No.1 utilized their bank accounts for the purpose of transferring the amounts. Insofar as accused Nos.7 to 9 are concerned, the only allegation against them is that they accompanied along with accused Nos.2 to 6. He further submitted that petitioners were arrested on 05.06.2025 and since then they were in judicial custody. All the petitioners are belonging to a small village and they are eking out their livelihood by doing agriculture work and also private employment and they are not having any criminal antecedents. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed for grant of bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners have committed grave offences and specific allegations levelled against the pet