IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA DATE: 17.03.2026 Crl.P.No.3056 of 2026 BETWEEN:

Manda Pavan Kumar …..petitioner/accused No.27 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

…..Respondent/complainant

ORDER

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.27, 26 and 25 in Crime No.86 of 2026 before the Sathupalli Police Station, Khammam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 66-D of ITA-

2000-2008.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant was induced by some of the accused persons on the pretext of providing employment and business opportunities. In that process, the accused allegedly persuaded the complainant to open several bank accounts in ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank and IDBI Bank and collected the internet banking credentials, ATM cards and other account- related materials. Subsequently, the said bank accounts were allegedly misused by the accused persons for carrying out organized cyber fraud by receiving and transferring large sums of money obtained from victims through online scams. Upon coming to know about the alleged cyber fraud involving accused No.1 and others, the complainant verified his bank accounts and noticed suspicious transactions.

3. Heard Sri S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and that their name does not find place in the original complaint with any specific allegations. He further submitted that the petitioners were working as a Customer Relation Officers in CSB Bank, Chandrugonda Branch and had no role in the alleged transactions. The allegations against the petitioners are vague and omnibus in nature and no material has been produced to show that he derived any benefit from the alleged fraud. He contended that the offences are mainly documentary in nature relating to bank transactions and all the relevant records are already in the custody of the investigating agency. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by allowing these Criminal Petitions.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions contending that the investigation so far reveals that the accused persons were involved in an organized cyber fraud syndicate through which huge amounts of money were collected from unsuspecting victims by using mule bank accounts. He further submitted that the petitioners, being a bank employees, along with other accused persons allegedly opened several bank accounts without proper verification of account holders and collected internet banking credentials, which were later handed over to the main accused for committing cyber fraud. The investigation further discloses that the accused persons received commissions for opening such accounts. He contended that the petitioners are shown as an absconding accused and their custodial interrogation is required to trace the money trail, identify additional mule accounts and ascertain the full extent of the conspiracy. At this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss these Criminal Petitions.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the present crime was registered on the basis of a complaint alleging that the accused persons induced the de facto complainant on the pretext of providing employment and business opportuni