S.Raju v. The State Of Telangana, Through P.S., Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.884 OF 2026 DATE : 26.02.2026 Between :

S.Raju ...

Petitioner/Accused And The State of Telangana, Through P.S.Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ... Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is accused in Crime No.1626 of 2025 of Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 66-C, 66-D of Information Technology Act, under Sections 111(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336 (3), 338 and 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.

The facts of the case are that on 09.09.2025, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before police stating that he received a message on WhatsApp from unknown number and the sender identified herself as Priya Sharma claimed to be the Assistant of one Suresh Malhotra and initiated conversation about stock investment and believing their words, the complainant invested huge amount, and thereafter he has not received any returns and later he came to know that he was cheated by the accused. Basing on the said complaint, police registered the case against the accused for the above offences. 3.

Heard Sri R. Prasanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said allegations. Petitioner was originally remanded to custody in other crime and in the present crime, on execution of P.T warrant his arrest was regularized on 28.11.2025 and even after three months, no charge sheet is filed. As such, petitioner is entitled for mandatory bail and on merits, there are no specific allegations

against the petitioner. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter denying the averments of the petition and opposed bail contending that petitioner herein is a habitual offender and there are number of victims in the hands of petitioner. If bail is granted to petitioner, there is every possibility of committing similar type of offences and he will not cooperate with the investigation. However, he informed the Court that as on today, charge sheet is not filed in the present crime. As such, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6.

Considering the submissions made and the material on record, the petitioner is in jail since 90 days and even after 90 days, charge sheet is not filed. Considering the same, without going into merits of the case, petitioner is granted regular bail subject to the following conditions :

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the XII-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

.

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 05.00 p.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier and thereafter, as and when required.

iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 26.02.2026 Rds

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.884 of 2026 Date: 26.02.2026 Rds