Syed Sohail @ Sohail, 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.8590 OF 2026 DATE : 30.06.2026 Between :
Syed Sohail @ Sohail ...
Petitioner/A.4 And The State of Telangana ...
Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner praying this Court to enlarge him on bail who is accused in Crime No.39 of 2026 of Cyber crime Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 66-C, 66-D of Information and Technology Act, and under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- 2 - 2.
The brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2026 the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before police sating that on 04.01.2026 at about 9:00 PM, he received a WhatsApp call from a person claiming to be a Rapido customer support executive. The caller induced him to share his mobile screen and asked him to transfer Rs.5/- through Paytm for activation of Rapido services. While doing so, the complainant noticed an OTP being generated without his consent, became suspicious, and immediately stopped screen sharing. Thereafter, his mobile phone became unresponsive and overheated. On the next day, upon checking his bank accounts, he found that an amount of Rs.1,39,999.90/- had been fraudulently transferred from two bank accounts linked to his PhonePe account through four unauthorized transactions.
During the course of investigation, accused No.2 was arrested on 31.03.2026 and he disclosed involvement of A.4 to A.6 in this offence. Based on the information received, separate police teams were formed to apprehend the said accused and on 01.04.2026 at about 11:00 AM, the petitioner was apprehended and produced before the Investigating Officer.
During interrogation, he allegedly confessed his involvement in the offence, and a confession-cum-
- 3 - seizure panchanama was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses on the same day. Hence, the present FIR. 3.
Heard Sri Shaik Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case without any credible material connecting him to the alleged offence. It is contended that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been arrayed as accused No.4 solely on the basis of the alleged confession of a co-accused, which has no evidentiary value. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a private employee and the sole breadwinner of his family, consisting of his aged parents and other dependents, who are facing hardship due to his incarceration. He also contended that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and that the allegations in the remand case diary do not disclose his involvement in the commission of offence. He further submits that investigation has substantially been completed, material witnesses have been examined and as such petitioner is no longer required for
- 4 - custodial interrogation. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the offence committed by the petitioner is a cyber fraud and he cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.04.2026. It is also noticed that substantial progress has been made in the investigation, as L.Ws.1 to 15 have already been examined. However, the charge sheet has not yet been filed. Considering the period of incarceration of petitioner in jail and the progress in investigation, 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) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the VI
- 5 - Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., on every Monday 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.
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date : 30.06.2026 Rds
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8590 OF 2026 DATE : 30.06.2026 Rds