[3521 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATj , FRIDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER » TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE iPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9088 OF 2025 '-•f Between: Saragadam Mukesh, S/o. Rambabu, aged about 21 years, R/o. Madakapalem, Lankalapalem, Paravada Mandai, Anakapalli District, A.P. Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C and Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail pending disposal of Crime No. 124/2025 of Cyber Crime P.S., Visakhapatnam District. The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Advocate for the Petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the Court made the following. APHC010447132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9088 OF 2025 Between: 1.SARAGADAM MUKESH, S/0. RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/0. MADAKAPALEM, LANKALAPALEM, PARAVADA MAN DAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No. 124 of 2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam District registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 143(1), 140(3), 146, 308(2), 127(4), read with 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that prior to 13.06.2025 at 18.30 hrs at D.No.26-14-130, Velampeta, Near BSNL Office, I Town Area, Visakhapatnam City, wherein the defacto complainant stated that due to ongoing financial difficulties, he and his friends were lured by a person named Mukesh, who claimed that his friend Ankita, working in Bangkok, could arrange high paying restaurant jobs there with a salary up to Rs.70,000/- month. Believing it to be a genuine opportunity, Durga Prasad/ defacto complainant and his friends shared their Passport copies and followed instructions to travel from Visakhapatnam to Kolkata. Upon reaching instructed them to travel to a place called Bokeo, where she and her collected their passports and coerced them to per Ankita manager engage in cyber scams by creating fake profiles on social media to cheat elderly individuals. When they refused, they were threatened with confinement and torture unless they paid Rs.1,00.000/-. It is to which, they pretended to co-operate, but escaped to a nearby location, contacted the local police to get temporary Passport. Basing on the report, the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri G. Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 3. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non cooperation from the Petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioner, if released may influence or intimidate witnesses obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists thereby a real and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the of the investigation, it is submitted that the potential threat to the integrity Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATIOM- 6. In the light of the case of the learned Counsel for both the sides prosecution and the contentions of the now the point for consideration is: Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail? ANALYSIS: 7. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2 is that he with the connivance and co-operation of the other Accused caused the defacto complainant and other victims to travel from India Vietnam illegally for making them to work criminals. The Petitioner / Accused No.2 to Bankok and from there to as Cyber Slaves to the cyber was arrested on 13.06.2025. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 90 days. Material portion of investigation is completed. So far, no Charge Sheet has been filed. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. He iIS a permanent resident of Madakapalem Lankalapalem, Paravada Mandal, Anakapalli District. CONCLUSION: 8. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. I. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court, iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. IV. V. Vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer, vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2. shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. 9. SD/- U. SRIDEVi ASSISTANT R^ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER F To, 1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime P.S., Visakhapatnam District. 4. One CC to SRI. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court of A.P., Amaravati [OUT]. 6. One spare copy HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 12/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9088 of 2025 ALLOWED