Syed Nazeeruddin Ahmed v. The State Of Telangana
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2929 of 2025 ORDER:
Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.4 in FIR.No.61 of 2024 of before Police Station, EOW, Cyberabad, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
2.
The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he and other victims were duped by DKZ Technologies/Dikaze Solutions Private Limited. The company's CEO, Syed Ashfaq Rahil, and his associates promised high returns on investments, claiming they were into B2B and B2C businesses and had tie-ups with Amazon and Boult. Dr. Rizwan invested Rs. 12 lakhs and received monthly returns of Rs. 1 lakh for 34 months. He then invested another Rs. 8.3 lakhs, along with his family members and friends, totaling Rs. 1.8 crores from 22 victims. However, the company stopped payments in July 2024, citing RBI regulations, and eventually closed its office on August 29, 2024. Dr. Rizwan requests assistance in
recovering their investments and urges action against the perpetrators to prevent further exploitation of innocent investors.
3.
Heard Sri Mohd Fasiuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and is actually a victim of the alleged scam by DKZ Technologies/Dikazo Solutions Private Limited and its directors, Ashfaq Rahil and Iqbal. He further submitted that the petitioner invested Rs.35 lakhs in the company, along with his family members, based on assurances of monthly profits and a guarantee to return the invested amount and that the company failed to deliver on its promises, and the petitioner lost his hard-earned money. He contended that despite being a victim, the petitioner was named as an accused in the FIR. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Further, there are number of victims in the hands of the accused. Till now, the amount was not recovered. Therefore, at this stage, granting of bail to the petitioner does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6.
In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is languishing in jail from 16.01.2025. As seen from the recording, material part of the investigation is completed and the prime accused, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 were already granted bail. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of the petitioner's incarceration, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner 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) each, with two sureties for a like sum
each to the satisfaction of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cumMetropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.
iii.
The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.(presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 07.03.2025 SAI
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2929 of 2025 Date: 07.03.2025 SAI