THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9513 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.169 of 2025 on the file of Station House Officer, Cyber Crimes Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 308 (6), 316 (2), 338, 336 (3) read with 340 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section

66-D of the Information Technology Act.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 22.01.2025 at 11:30 Pm the de facto complainant by name Mrs. Sakshi Kondakindhi lodged a complaint at P.S. Cyber Crimes stating that in January, 2024 she saw an ad in Linkedin and joined a WhatsApp group claiming to be linked to Hems Securities led by one Aisha Sithika and the group claimed to help people and make money by trading. Believing the promises made by Aisha the de facto complainant joined the trading class platform via suspicious link and as guided by them she started investing money and in the beginning she invested Rs.5,000/- and on the advise of Aisha she kept on adding more funds. Eventually, she invested more than Rs.46,00,000/- by transferring money from her bank account to various bank accounts and UPI Ids shared by Aisha and she was told that she will earn over Rs.71,00,000/- in profits and she was asked to pay 20% commission to withdraw the money and after paying the said amount she was demanded to pay another 20% as tax and the de facto complainant came to know that she was cheated. Basing on the said complaint, a case in crime No.169 of 2025 was registered.

3. Heard Ms. Elipe Shanthasree, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the above crime. It is further submitted that there are no specific allegations much less specific allegations leveled against the petitioner and petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the complaint. However, the petitioner was implicated as accused No.2 basing upon the confession statement given by the co-accused/accused No.3 and the same is not permissible under law especially as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short ‘BSA’). The confession statement recorded by the police when the accused No.3 was in their custody, and the said confession statement is not permissible under law. Learned counsel further submits that the de facto complainant has not made any allegations against the petitioner nor the petitioner has not received any amount from the de facto complainant. The petitioner is no way concerned with the account No.141412010001817. Even according to the transaction, the de facto complainant invested an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- only but, whereas as per the complaint lodged by the de facto complaint, the prosecution alleged that the petitioner and other accused cheated the de facto complainant to a tune of Rs.47,00,000/-, in the absence of any iota of evidence.

5. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the alleged allegations are pertaining to the year 2024 whereas the de facto complainant lodged the complaint on 20.01.2025 after lapse of more than one year even without explaining any reasons for the said delay. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not having any other criminal antecedents and he is the only bread winner of his family and eeking his livelihood by doing private job and he shall abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court, and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation, if any. Hence, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has commi