1 APHC010000882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 17/2026 Between: 1. PODALA MOHAN SAI @ PODALA MOHAN, S/O LATE P. SANKAR RAO, AGED 36 YEARS,OCC TYPIST IN PDM COURT NELLORE,R/O D.NO. 4-8-148, SHADHI MANZIL STREET,NAZIR THOTA, NELLORE CITY,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KAKUMANU POLICE STATION,GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SHAIK AFZAL MOHAMMED Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 17 OF 2026 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.4 on bail in Crime No.90 of 2025 of Kakumanu Police Station, Guntur, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 111(4), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of Information Technology Act. 2. Heard Mr. Shaik Afzal Mohammed, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.10.2025 at about 4.00 p.m., the complainant received a phone call from an unknown woman accused, who introduced herself as an officer of the CID, Karnataka State. The caller informed the complainant that a case had been registered against her in Karnataka relating to human trafficking and instructed her to come to Delhi. During the course of the conversation, the caller obtained the complainant‟s bank details and other family particulars, and the complainant disclosed the same to the accused. The said unknown woman thereafter made several WhatsApp calls to the complainant‟s mobile number and 3 informed her that she was allegedly involved in a money laundering case. The accused also threatened the complainant with “digital arrest” and demanded money to avoid legal action. Believing the version of the unknown accused, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- on two occasions, totalling Rs.42,00,000/-, from her SBI savings account to the bank accounts specified by the accused through ICICI Bank transactions. Subsequently, upon realising that she had been cheated by unknown persons, the complainant approached the police station on 07.11.2025 and lodged a complaint. Based on the said complaint, the police registered the present crime. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and that no specific overt act is attributed against him, except a vague allegation that he contacted accused No.1 for the purpose of transfer of money. It is submitted that specific allegations are made only against accused Nos.9 and 12 and that the investigation has been completed. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court to secure his presence during the course of investigation. 5. Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the investigation is at a crucial stage and that, so far, six witnesses have been examined. It is further 4 submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made, and having regard to the gravity and nature of the offence and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage, as there exists every possibility of influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 19.01.2026 S D P 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 17 OF 2026 19.01.2026 S D P