Telangana High Court
CRLP/15477/2024 of Mr. Shaik Meera Hussain Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2024
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: {5477 OF 2024 Between: Mr. Shaik Meera Hussain, S/o Shaik Bikkan sat, Age. 55 yrs, Occ. Business (real estate), R/o.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: {5477 OF 2024
Between:
Mr. Shaik Meera Hussain, S/o Shaik Bikkan sat, Age. 55 [yrs, Occ. Business](real estate), R/o. Rajiv Swagruha, C9- Block, Flat No.502, Bandlaguda,Nagole, R.R Dist, N/o. H.No.8-73, Main Road, Nuthankal [Village & Mandalam,]Suryapet Dist, Telangana
...Petitioner/Accused No.1
AND
The State of Telangana, through, P.S Cyber Crime, Hyderabad. Rep by itsPublic Prosecutor High CourtofTelangana, Hyderabad.
...Respondent
Petition under Section 480, 483 of BNSS Act, 2023 [praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of [Criminal ][Petition, ][the]High Court may be pleased to enlarge the [petitioner ]on [bail ][in ][Crime vide ][Crime]No.254612O24 i.e., Under Sec. Offence U/Sec. 66 C, 66 [D ][lT Act, 86 ][Sec 308(2)']318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338,340(2) of BNSS.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon [perusing ][the ][Memorandum of]Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing [the ][arguments ][of ][Sri ][JANARDHAN]SUNKARI, Advocate for the Petitioner and [Mr. ][SYED YASAR ][MAMOON' ][the]Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole [Respondent.]
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE [K. ][SUJANA]
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15477 [of 2024]
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
Seekinl4 the Court to enlarge the [petitioner, ][who ][is]arrayed as accused [No.1 ]in [Crime ][No.2546 ][of ][2024 ][of ][Cyber]Crime Police Station, Hyderabad, [on ][bail, the ][present ][Criminal]Petition is lilr d.
The brief facts of the case are facts of the case are of the case are the case are case are are [[that on ][24.10..2024']][[24.10..2024']]
2. The brief facts of the case are facts of the case are of the case are the case are case are are [[that on ][24.10..2024']][[24.10..2024']]received a complaint from [de ][facto ][complainant stating ][t.hat a]she receivecl a WhatsApp call from [the cell ][number][REDACTED]. The caller claimed [to ][be ][from ][the Mumbai tlyber]Crime unit and stated that her [Aadhaar ][card was ][being]misused in various states, [including ][Goa, ][Flaryana, ][and]Punjab. It is alleged that [her Aadhaar ][information ][was ][used ][to]obtain a .Jio tiber network connection, [which ][was ][involved ][in]illegal actn,itics such as child trafficking, [pornography, ][and]moncv fraucl. The caller threatened her, stating [that ][she was ][a]suspcct in a money fraud case and would [be arrested ][if ][she]disconnected the call.
3. Heard Sri Janardhan Sunkari, learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Sri SyedYasar Mamoon, learned Additional public prosecutorappearing for respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that evenif the allegations are taken as true, no prima facie case ismade against the petitioner and that the allegations do notconstitute an offence as alleged in the complaint. He furthersubmitted that the petitioner denies involvement in the allegedoffence and claims that the allegations are false and an abuseof the Iegal process and that the necessary ingredients for thealleged offence are not present in the complaint, and no overtact is attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed theCourt to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this CriminalPetition.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public [prosecutor]submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitionerare serious in nature, at this stage, granting of bail to thepetitioner does not arise. Further, the investigation is not yetcompleted. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss thecriminal petition.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both thelearned counsel and a perusal of the material available onrecord, it is noted that that the bank account of the petitionerwas implica[ed in a transaction resulting in a subsl-antiallinancial loss of Rs.3,21,0O0/- for the victim. Further, thisamount remiains unrecovered to date. In light of the severit5rof the offence and the fact that the primary perpetratorremains unknown, the Court is not inclined to grant bail tothe petitioner at this juncture. Therefore, this Court does notfind any merit in the criminal petition to grant bail to thepetitioner anC the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Misccllancous applications, i[ any pending, shall stand closed.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- V. HARI PRASADASISTRARFFICER
'1. The Xll Additionat Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.The Xll Additionat Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime police Station, Hyderabad.
3. Two CCs to the PUBLTC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad.(OUT)
4. One CC to SFlt JANARDHAN SUNKARI Advocate IOPUC]IOPUC]
5. Two CD Copir:s
')^
')^.liRC/sh (
HIGH COURT
DATED: 3111212024
ORDERCRLP.No.15477 ot 2024
-(t\-: [STAI]s.<zit2Frts2U5al()t*oEs p (ro.^Tct{
ACCORDINGLY THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED