Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Sachin Satyam Uttarwar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.6917 of 2025
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The petitioner, Sachin Satyam Uttarwar, filed a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail in connection with allegations of online cricket betting and related offences under several statutes, including the Telangana Gaming Act, 1974, the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (!) .
The prosecution's case is that credible information led to a raid at the residence of accused No.1, resulting in the apprehension of multiple accused persons, including the petitioner, on 03.04.2025 (!) .
The petitioner’s counsel argued that he has not committed any offence, was falsely implicated based on confessions of co-accused, and that no specific allegations directly pertain to him. They also highlighted that other accused persons have already been granted bail and that most of the investigation is complete, with only the filing of the chargesheet pending. The petitioner resides in Maharashtra and is willing to cooperate with the investigation (!) .
The prosecution contended that the petitioner is involved in grave offences, with specific allegations against him under multiple statutes, including offences related to online betting and other criminal activities, and that investigation is ongoing, including in relation to another case against him (!) .
The court observed that specific allegations are indeed leveled against the petitioner, including his involvement in another criminal case, and that the investigation is still in progress with charges yet to be filed (!) .
The court noted that although other accused persons have been granted bail, this does not automatically entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail, especially given the gravity of the allegations and ongoing investigation (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the criminal petition, denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on the seriousness of the allegations and the need to allow the investigation to proceed without interference (!) (!) .
In summary, the court emphasized that due to the grave nature of the allegations, ongoing investigation, and the fact that other co-accused have already been granted bail, anticipatory bail was rightly denied to the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of online betting at accused's residence. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding false implications and gravity of charges. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on ongoing investigations and implications of bail. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. denial of anticipatory bail based on evidence and ongoing investigations. (Para 8) |
| 5. final ruling of dismissal of the petition. (Para 9) |
Order
:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4 82 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.66 of 2025 of Town V Police Station, Nizamabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section s 3 18(4), 316(2), 61(2) and 111 r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section s 3 and 4 of Telangana Gaming Act, 1974 (for short ‘TG Act’), and Section s 66D and 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’).
2. Heard Mr. M.V.V.Baswaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 appearing through video conference and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.04.2025, on receipt of credible information that online cricket betting is going on in the house of accused No.1 at Bharathi Rani Colony, Nagaram, Nizamabad, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town V Police Station, Nizamabad, conducted a raid at the said house and apprehended accused Nos.1, 4, 5 & 6 and registered the aforesaid crime.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime based on the confession statement made by the other accused and the same is not permissible in law. He further submits that that even according to the complaint, no specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of Section s 3 18(4), 316(2), 61(2) and 111 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS and Section s 3 and 4 of TG Act and Section s 66D and 69A of IT Act. He further submits that the other accused were already enlarged on bail and major portion of the investigation is completed except filing of chargesheet and the petitioner is doing trading business and is residing in Dharmabad, Nanded District, Maharashtra, and prays to grant anticipatory bail as he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner/accused No.2 has committed grave offence and specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of Section s 3 18(4), 316(2), 61(2) and 111 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS and Section s 3 and 4 of TG Act and Section s 66D and 69A of IT Act and the petitioner is also accused in Crime No.36 of 2024 of Town V Police Station, Nizamabad and the investigation is in progress and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner. The written instructions dated 10.06.2025 of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town V Police Station, Nizamabad, disclose that the petitioner is also accused in Crime No.36 of 2024 on the file of Town V Police Station, Nizamabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4 06 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’) and Section s 3 and 4 of TG Act and Section 66D of IT Act.
7. Insofar as the contention raised by the petitioner that other accused were enlarged on bail and the petitioner is also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, according to the learned Additional Public prosecutor, other accused were arrested and sent to judicial remand and thereafter, the concerned Court granted them regu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
