##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.199 of 2025

DATE: 02.03.2026

BETWEEN:

Selvam Ramraj

…..petitioner/accused No.2

And

The State of Telangana

Rep. by the Central Bureau of Investigation,

Anti Corruption Bureau, 3^rd floor,

Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.

…..Respondents

: ORDER :

This Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioner/A.2

aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.3777 of 2024 in C.C.No.6061 of 2024 by the XXI-

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special JMFC for Trial

of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

2

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI), ACB, Hyderabad registered a case in RC.

No.01(A)/2020 alleging that accused Nos.1 to 5 entered into a

criminal conspiracy to impersonate senior Government of India

officials by spoofing official telephone numbers of the CBI and

the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was alleged that, by such

impersonation, they attempted to extort huge sums of money

from persons facing investigation, including Shri Rayapati

Sambasiva Rao, Chairman of M/s. Transtroy (India) Ltd., by

promising favourable outcomes in pending CBI cases. After

completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences

under Sections 120-B read with Sections 419, 420 read with

511 IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.

Cognizance was taken and the case was registered as

C.C.No.6061 of 2024, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as

Accused No.2.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed discharge petition before

the trial Court under Section 239 Cr.P.C., contending that he

had no role in the alleged conspiracy and that the charge sheet

did not disclose any grave suspicion against him. He submitted

that the allegations primarily concerned accused Nos.4 and 5

3

and that he was not aware of the true identity of accused No.5,

who impersonated senior government officials. It was argued

that mere WhatsApp communications and association with co-

accused do not establish mens rea or a prior agreement

necessary to constitute criminal conspiracy. The petitioner

further contended that even if the entire charge sheet is

accepted as true, the essential ingredients of offences under

Sections 120-B, 419, 420 read with 511 IPC and Section 66-D

of the IT Act are not attracted, and therefore continuation of the

proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

4. The prosecution before the trial Court opposed the

petition contending that the petitioner was an active conspirator

who played a crucial role in facilitating the extortion scheme. It

was submitted that the petitioner introduced accused No.1 to

accused No.5 and coordinated communications between them,

fully aware that money was being demanded by impersonating

CBI and MHA officials. The prosecution relied upon WhatsApp

chats, telephonic surveillance, hotel bookings, and statements

of witnesses to establish the petitioner’s involvement and mens

rea. It was argued that at the stage of discharge, the Court was

only required to see whether a prima facie case existed and not

4

to conduct a mini-trial and that sufficient material is available

to proceed against the petitioner.

5. After hearing both sides, the trial Court examined the

scope of Section 239 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 24.01.2025 and

dismissed the petition holding that discharge could be granted

only when the charge was found to be groundless. Upon

perusal of the charge sheet and accompanying material, the

trial Court observed that there was prima facie material

indicating the petitioner’s participation in the alleged

conspiracy, including his role in introducing co-accused,

facilitating communications, and assisting the key conspirator.

The trial Court further held that at the stage of discharge,

detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible and that the

material on record raised sufficient grounds to presume the

petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offences. Aggrieved

thereby, the pe