Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/2577/2026 of Shaik Moulali Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 9 April 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2577/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK MOULALI, S/O MADEENA, AGED
APHC010161692026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2577/2026
Between:
1. SHAIK MOULALI, S/O MADEENA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC
AGRICULTURE R/O D.NO. 7-90, SUDDA GUNTHALA BAZAAR, PIDUGURALLA POST AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ANDHRA
PRADESH - 522 413
2. NALLAMEKALA VENU GOPALA, S/O SRINU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC R/O SARAGAMPALLI AGRAHARAM, MADINAPADU, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 414
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (SHO,CYBER CRIME POLICE
STATION, VIJAYAWADA,NTR DISTRICT) REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
A.P
HIGH
COURT
BUILDINGS,
NELAPADU
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. SARIPUDI RAJA MOULI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2577 OF 2026
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.
ORDER:-
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 8 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.106 of 2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Vijayawada, NTR District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 61(2), 111(4) of BNS and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000-2008.
2. Heard Mr.Saripudi Rajamouli, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant previously worked at Appollo Diagnostics and is presently unemployed and in the year 2024 his neighbor Krishna Reddy visited him and stated that a person whom he came to know through online platforms informed him that if bank accounts were opened and the relevant details were shared to him they would pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per account, and that complainant visited City Union Bank, Bhavanipuram accompanied by Krishna Reddy signed on aadhar, pan card and certain papers and were given to bank, and thereafter Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.2,000/- were credited to his and his relatives account and thereafter he did not have any further knowledge regarding these transactions and then realized that if any bank account was opened using the credentials that he had earlier given to Krishna Reddy is involved in or registered under any Cyber Crime case, he may face serious legal consequences and subsequently he came to know that his bank account transactions was occurred till now was Rs.2,53,00,000/-. Basing on the report of complainant, the police registered the Crime NO.106 of 2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are no way connected with the case and they are falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel would further submit that there are approximately 199 victims involved in the present case. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the police officials.
5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the investigation is at nascent stage. She would further submit that there is a prima-facie evidence to establish the role of the petitioners in commission of the offence. Hence, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail there is every likelihood to tamper the evidence and hamper the ongoing investigation and she finally prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, this Court did not find any reasons to release them apart from considering the gravity of the offences and since there is involvement of crores of rupees and under these circumstances, if bail is granted to the petitioners, there is every possibility to tamper crucial evidence by way of operating mule accounts of victims. Considering the nature of offence and gravity of offence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 10.04.2026 S D P
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2577 OF 2026 10.04.2026
W S D P