Adhil Meeran v. The State Of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2743 OF 2026 DATE : 06.03.2026 Between :
Adhil Meeran ...
Petitioner/A.18 And The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O, Hyderabad, Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad Rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad ... Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as A.18 in Crime No.37 of 2025 of Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 318 (4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2025, the defacto complainant who is engaged in real estate business,
lodged a complaint stating that a woman named Mounica contacted him via WhatsApp regarding a plot in Hyderabad and introduced him to a trading website. She demonstrated how the platform worked and persuaded him to invest, assuring that she would handle all the analysis. Initially, he invested Rs.50,000/-, which showed a profit of 24%. Encouraged by this, Mounica convinced him to invest a larger sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, and within a week the account reflected profits of nearly Rs.3,50,00,000/- in dollars. However, when the defacto complainant attempted to withdraw the funds, the website displayed a disclaimer requiring payment of 30% tax on the profit. Believing this, he paid Rs.1,33,96,381/- as tax. Despite repeated attempts, each withdrawal request was rejected with further demands for payment, thereby cheated him. Hence, requested the police for taking necessary action and also for recovery of his amount. Based on the said complaint, the police registered the present case against the accused for the above offences.
3.
Heard Sri Azeem Mustafa, 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 and he does not know about using of his bank account by the unlawful authorities. The allegation against the petitioner is that the bank account of petitioner is used for depositing of amount and he gave his account for commission. When petitioner was in jail, A.19 filed writ petition for defreezing the account of petitioner which itself shows that the account of the petitioner is used by A.19 to induce the victims. The petitioner is in jail from 04.12.2025 and as on today, charge sheet is not filed as such, petitioner is entitled for mandatory bail and prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Under the guise of huge profits the accused defrauded and conspired with each other and cheated many victims. As such, petitioner is not entitled for bail. However, he informed that charge sheet is not filed as on today. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition. 6.
Having regard to the submissions made by both counsel and the material on record, the petitioner is in jail from 04.12.2025 and as on today charge sheet is not filed by the
investigating authority. Considering the allegations against the petitioner and even after completion of 90 days, as no charge sheet is filed, this Court is inclined to grant regular 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) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the VI-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 05.00 p.m., on every Wednesday 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: 06.03.2026 Rds
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2743 OF 2026 Date:06.03.2026 Rds