CRLP/13232/2026 of Kasukurthi Anil Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana, on 24 August 2026

:ORDER:

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Heard Mr. T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel argued on behalf of Mr.T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.13 in Crime No.2934 of 2025 on the file of the Cyber Crimes Police Station, Cyberabad District, facing accusations under Sections 79, 189, 204, 308, 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 352 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Sections 66-C and 66-D read with 43 of the Information Technology Act,2000.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on credible information, the complainant and his team suspected certain premises where a fake call centre was allegedly being operated illegally by accused Nos.1 to 9. The police conducted a search of the premises and seized certain material. On enquiry, it was revealed that the accused were allegedly involved in unlawful activities, including making telephone calls during night hours and committing serious offences by deceiving innocent persons.

4.2. It is alleged that the accused lured victims by promising high returns on short-term investments, impersonated representatives of reputed e-commerce and financial companies, and used fake mobile applications, websites and e- mails, while representing them as genuine, in order to gain the confidence of the victims and collect money under false pretexts. It is further alleged that they extorted money by threatening the victims with morphing and posting obscene content online with an intention to defame them and their family members. They also allegedly impersonated law-enforcement officers and used threats such as placing the victims under “house arrest” to extract money from them.

4.3. The prosecution further alleges that accused No.1, who is said to be the kingpin of the entire operation, was supplying Australian bank accounts for receiving the amounts collected from the victims. Accused No.2 allegedly acted in his absence. Based on the report lodged by the police, the crime came to be registered.

4.4. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be implicated as accused No.13 on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused. It is alleged that the petitioner had supplied the mule accounts for collecting the amounts from the victims. 5.1 Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and that his name is not mentioned either in the complaint or in the First Information Report. His involvement has been attributed to him only on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly made by co-accused.

5.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, even as per the prosecution case, no victim has so far been examined and no statement of any independent witness implicating the petitioner has been brought on record. It is contended that the offences under Sections 308 and 338 of the BNS are not attracted to the petitioner, even if the allegations of the prosecution are taken at their face value, as the specific allegation against the petitioner is only that he allegedly provided mule band accounts.

5.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that accused No.1, who is alleged to be the kingpin of the entire operation, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and this court has directed the investigating agency to serve Section 35(3) BNSS notice to the accused No.12, who stands in the same footing of the petitioner. As the petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with the present crime, therefore, learned Senior Counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner or a direction for issuance of the section 35(3) BNSS notice.

6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the crime was registered on the report lodged by the Inspector of Police with regard to the illegal activities being carried out by the accused in the guise of a call centre. It is submitted that the accused formed a gang and, by inducing members of the public through impersonation and other fraudulent means, extracted money from them.

6.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have participated in the said activities by providing mule bank accounts. The investigation is still in progress and the custodial presence of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of effective investigation and to ascertain the involvement of other persons connected with the offence. Therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

8. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with the other accused, was involved in cyber-related offences and that the proceeds of the alleged cyber fraud committed against victims in Australia were processed through the mule accounts furnished by the petitioner. Though the allegations against the accused are serious in nature, admittedly, the prosecution has not placed on record any specific instance or material, as of now, directly connecting the petitioner with the alleged fraudulent activities.

9. Having regard to the specific overt acts alleged against the petitioner in the crime, the relief granted to the co-accused, who is similarly placed as the petitioner, and the petitioner’s categorical undertaking to participate in and fully cooperate with the investigation, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to extend to the petitioner the statutory safeguards envisaged under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, leaving all issues open for consideration by the Investigating Agency during the course of the investigation.

10. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Cyber Crimes Police Station, Cyberabad District within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such appearance, the Investigating Officer shall issue a notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of the BNSS in Crime No.2934 of 2025 and shall thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law, duly adhering to the principles and guidelines enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. The petitioner shall, in turn, extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

11. With this direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________

JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Date: 24.08.2026 CHS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13232 of 2026 Date: 24.08.2026

CHS