Katla Sathish Kumar @ Sathish 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.17227 OF 2025 07.01.2026 Between:

Katla Sathish Kumar @ Sathish ....Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad, Through Station House Officer, Kodimial P.S., Jagtial District .....Respondent :ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.6 in Crime No.200 of 2025 of Kodimial Police Station, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 318 (4), 316(2) r/w.3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and Sections 3 and 4 of

Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978.

2.

The facts of the case are that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before police on 09.07.2025, alleging that A.1 Singireddy Thirupathi Reddy and Veerabathi Raju had conducted a meeting with her and Bollam Rakesh. During the meeting, the accused dishonestly persuaded them to invest money in an online chain marketing application called "Meta Mask-Crypto Wallet." They promised that the invested amount would be tripled and that the returns would be credited directly to the investors' bank accounts within a short period. The accused also claimed that investors would receive free trips to Goa, Dubai, Singapore, and Bangkok. Believing their assurances, the defacto complainant transferred money through her son, Rayananveni Pradeep Kumar, using his PhonePe account and also paid some amount in cash. In total, she invested Rs.9,00,000/-.

Additionally, Adlagatta Ramesh invested Rs.3,00,000/-, and Bollam Rakesh invested Rs.8,50,000/- on multiple occasions, but however, the accused failed to provide any returns and kept postponing the matter.

Meta Mask-Crypto Wallet app had shut down completely, then she realized that herself and others had been cheated. Hence, requested the police to take action against the accused basing on which, the police registered a case against the accused for the above offences.

3.

Heard Sri Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime basing on the confession statements of A.1 and A.2. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 26.11.2025 on execution of NBW in connection with FIR No.631 of 2025 of Jagtial Police Station. Initially petitioner herein was not shown as accused in this crime which shows that he is falsely implicated in this case. The entire allegations are mainly against A.1 and A.2. He further contended that petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and shall abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are severe in nature, involving multiple victims who have been defrauded by the petitioner and other accused. Petitioner is involved in seven crimes. He further submitted that the recovery of the defrauded amounts is still pending and the investigation is ongoing. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss the criminal petition. 6.

Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and material on record, petitioner is in jail from 26.11.2025 and the allegation against the petitioner is that he is involved in running an app called Meta Mask Crypto Wallet scheme. Though learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that there are seven crimes pending against the petitioner, all the other crimes are registered by different victims. Hence, considering the period of incarceration of petitioner and the allegations against the petitioner herein, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitionerA.6 subject to the following conditions.

i. The petitioner-A.6 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 II-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

ii. The petitioner-A.6 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-A.6 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: 07.01.2026 Rds

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17227 OF 2025 Date: 07.01.2026 Rds