APHC010111722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. BHIMIREDDY SRINADH REDDY,, S/O B. APPIREDDY, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6 (RAMACHANDRA PURAM), KRISHNA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner regular bail, in Crime No.9 of 202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2357/2025 BHIMIREDDY SRINADH REDDY,, S/O B. APPIREDDY, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6-145, VISSANNAPETA MANDAL, KALAGARA (RAMACHANDRA PURAM), KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/A. of 2025 of Parvatipuram Town Police Station IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO BHIMIREDDY SRINADH REDDY,, S/O B. APPIREDDY, AGED 28 145, VISSANNAPETA MANDAL, KALAGARA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT of the Bharatiya /A.7, seeking Town Police Station. 2 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b), 319(2), 318(4) & 309(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.2025, the de facto complainant filed a report before the police stating that on 18.12.2024 at about 12.00 noon, he received a phone call from an unknown number. In that call, an unknown person posed himself as S.I. of Police, Vijayanagar Police Station and threatened him that one person has rented a car with Aadhar proof of the de facto complainant and got damaged public property and cut the phone call by saying that CBI Officer would talk to him about it. On the same day, at about 15.00 hours, one person by name Akash called the de facto complainant and threatened him that there was a charge on the de facto complainant that he had cheated 183 members by luring them with jobs and collected three crores from them and also send an arrest warrant to the de facto complainant through Whatsapp. On the next day, at about 9.30 a.m., the said Akash called the de facto complainant and told him that if he wants to put his arrest warrant on hold, he should pay Rs.15 lakhs instantly. Frightened by the words of the culprit, the de facto complainant made RTGS transfer of total Rs.41,50,000/- to the bank accounts provided by the culprits in different spells. On coming to know about the cheating committed by the culprits, the de facto complainant filed the present report against the accused 3 before the police. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 20.02.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.7 contends that the petitioner was arrested on 20.02.2025 and since then he has been in judicial custody. He further submits that this Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to A.1 by an order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Criminal Petition No.1406 of 2025. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that specific accusations have been made against the petitioner/A.7 that he collected an amount of Rs.41.50 lakhs from the de facto complainant and transferred the amounts to various persons and so far the amount has not been recovered. 7. After careful observation of the material on record and submissions made on behalf of both sides, this Court finds that the case against A.1 is based on the confessional statement of co-accused, as such granting of anticipatory bail to A.1 cannot be taken as criteria to grant bail to this petitioner as primary accusation has been made against the petitioner that he collected an amount of Rs.41.50 lakhs through deposits made by the de facto complainant and later he transferred the said amounts to various persons. As 4 no amount has been recovered so far, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A.7 at this stage. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Dated: 28.03.2025 anr 5 116 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2357 of 2025 Dated: 28.03.2025 anr