Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Yenduluri Venkata Dileep Kumar, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 July, 2025
APHC010335642025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6972/2025
Between:
1. SRI YENDULURI VENKATA DILEEP KUMAR, S/O. MASTANRAO,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-246, LINGAMGUNTIA
VILLAGE, PEDDAKURAPADU MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. SRI KANCHARLA ADARSH BABU, S/O. VENKATA NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. 9-41, BUS STAND CENTRE,
TADIKONDA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (SHO, Cyber Crime Police Station,
Visakhapatnam Commissionerate), rep. by its Public Prosecutor High
Court of Andhra Pradesh Buildings, At Amaravati
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to enlarge the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.16 & 19 on Bail in connection with Crime No.53 of
2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. K SAIRAM MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
DR.YLR,J
CRLP.NO.6972/2025The Court made the following ORDER:
The criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of
“BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023” (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking
to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr. No.162 of 2024 of MaharanipetaPolice
Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerateregistered for the alleged offences
punishable under Section 194 of ‘the BNSS’.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 07.12.2025, the de-facto
complainant received a WhatsApp call from mobile number +639510912260
and the person spoke in English and Hindi language that, her husband taken
Rs.2000/- loan through online app and sent few obscene morphed photos of
her and her husband. On that, the de-facto complainant paid an amount of
Rs.2,000/- through Phone Pe to the said mobile number. Further, she gone to
duty at Simhadri Hospital, later, while she was present at the Hospital, her
brother-in-law contacted her over phone and informed that, her husband died
due to hanging himself with a saree in their room. On that information, the de-
facto complainant immediately rushed to her house at about 20:00 hours and
broke open the doors and shifted her husband to KG Hospital, Visakhapatnam
and the doctors informed that her husband was brought dead. Hence, a case
was registered.
3.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3
DR.YLR,J
CRLP.NO.6972/2025
4. Sri K. Sairam Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are sole bread winners of their family. The petitioners have not
committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case. The
petitioners would abide by any condition to be imposed by this court.
5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
opposed in granting of bail stating that the petitioners are habitual
offenders,some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation is
not completed; if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they would not be
available for the investigation and they would escape from the clutches of law;
and urged to dismiss the bail petition.
6. As seen from the record, the petitioners were arrested on 25.03.2025
that is about 112 days ago from this day. However, the petitioners were sent
to judicial custody on 10.04.2025 that is 96 days from this day. The allegation
against the petitioners is that they had indulged in online transaction of the
money by luring or cheating the gullible public and extorted money from them
by resorting various methods including morphing of photos with obscene
photos. The Investigating Officer has not filed charge sheet in this case. The
petitioners, as observed supra, have been in the judicial custody for the past
96 days. This Court in Crl.P.No.5755 of 2025 on 25.06.2025, enlarged the
Accused Nos.14 and 15 on bail and the learned Single Judge of this Court in
Crl.P.No.4355 of 2025, enlarged the Accused No.6 on bail and this Court in
Crl.P.No.5475 of 2025 on 29.05.2025, enlarged the Accused No.12 on bail.
4
DR.YLR,J
CRLP.NO.6972/2025
7. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the
petitioners, their alleged role played in this case, stage of the investigation and
the period of detention they have been undergoing, this Court deems it fit to
enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions:
i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.16 and 19 shall be enlarged on
bail subject to them executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like
sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.16 and 19shall appear before the
Station HouseOfficer, Maharanipeta Police Station,
Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, onevery Saturday in
between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, tillcognizance is taken by the
learned the Trial Court.
iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.16 and 19shall not leave the
limits of the Districtwithout prior permission from the learned
Chief JudicialMagistrate, Visakhapatnam.
iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.16 and 19 shall not commit or
indulge incommission of any offence in future.
v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.16 and 19shall cooperate with
the investigatingofficer in further investigation of the case and
shall make themselvesavailable for interrogation by the
investigating officer as andwhen required.
vi. The petitioners/Accused Nos.16 and 19shall not, directly or
indirectly, makeany inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted withthe facts of the case so as to dissuade
him/her from disclosingsuch facts to the court or to any police
officer.
5
DR.YLR,J
CRLP.NO.6972/2025vii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.16 and 19shall surrender their
passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that
they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to
that effect to the Investigating Officer.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
________________________
Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dated: 18.07.2025
Note: Issue C.C today
B/o.
KAS
[ad_1]
Source link