Mohammed Farooq Alias Mohammed Ibrahim, 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.3752 OF 2026 DATE :25.03.2026 Between :
Mohammed Farooq @ Mohammed Ibrahim ...
Petitioner/Accused And The State of Telangana, Rep., byits Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad, ... Respondent : ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is accused in Crime No.644of 2025 of Mavala Police Station, Adilabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioner areunder Sections318 (4), 319 (2), 336(3), 338, 61, 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and under Sections 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2008.
2.
The brief facts of the case are thaton 08.12.2025 at about 17:00 hours, the complainant lodged a complaint before police stating that on 07.12.2025 at about 16:30 hours, he received a WhatsApp call from an unknown number, wherein the caller, introduced himself as Mohammed Ibrahim and referred to the complainant's younger brother, sought financial assistance for the family of one Aslam Moulana, who had allegedly passed away on 06.12.2025. The caller informed that he would transfer Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant's account for this purpose and subsequently made a video call, sending two fake screenshots showing amounts of Rs.96,000/- credited to the complainant's account, and induced him to transfer Rs.35,000/- to an Indian Overseas Bank account. Thereafter, the caller again falsely claimed to have sent Rs.
85,000/- and persuaded the complainant to transfer an additional amount of Rs.23,500/-, making a total claim of Rs.58,500/-. Later on verification, the complainant realized that no such amounts were credited and that he had been cheated.
accused. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime is registered against the accused for the above offences. 3.
Heard Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, 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 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation is substantially complete, as the petitioner was arrested on 26.12.2025, his alleged confession was recorded, witnesses have been examined, and the investigating officer has already issued notices under the relevant provisions of the BNSS, while all material evidence, including bank account details, WhatsApp data, IMEI information, call detail records, IP logs, and NCRB data, has been collected; hence, no further custodial interrogation or recovery is required. He further contends that petitioner shall undertake to cooperate with the investigation and comply with any conditions imposed by this Court. It is further submitted that since all electronic devices and records are already in the custody of police, the apprehension of tampering with evidence is unfounded. The learned counsel further contended that the alleged cheated amount is only Rs.58,500/-, which is relatively small, and the
petitioner is willing to deposit the said amount or furnish adequate security. It is also contended that the allegation of involvement in multiple cases is based solely on NCRB data without any conviction, and mere pendency of cases cannot be a ground to deny bail. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.12.2025, and prolonged pre-trial detention violates his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. Learned counsel also contended that the mandatory notice under Section 35 of BNSS was not served prior to arrest, rendering the arrest procedurally irregular. Hence, prayed this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner. 5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the petitioner herein forged electronic media by sending fake whatsapp messages to show that the victims had received money from the accused. He also used different SIM cards registered in the name of his friends and relatives as his own SIM cards and committed several cyber crimes. Further petitioner is involved in 37 crimes in different places across India. If petitioner is released on bail he may commit similar offences as the same involves cheating through
electronic means, as such, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material on record, the petitioner is in jail from 26.12.2025 and as informed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor charge sheet is already filed. Considering the period of incarceration of petitioner in jail and also completion of investigation, this Court deems it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner subject to 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 Judicial First Class Magistrate (PCR), Adilabad.
ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks 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 483(2) of the BNSS.
iv. Petitioner is directed not to involve in similar offences, failing which, the investigating officer is at liberty to file petition for cancellation of bail.
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 25.03.2026 Rds
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3752 OF 2026 Date: 25.03.2026 Rds