Dismissed¶38

Nagi Reddy Fareed Baba v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Sept 2025CRLP/10552/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC (K. Sujana, J.), Crl.P. No.10552 of 2025, decided 01-09-2025: petition under Section 482 BNSS for pre-arrest bail by A13 (Nagi Reddy Fareed Baba) in Crime No.1786 of 2025, Cyber Crime PS Cyberabad, DISMISSED. Fake call centre cyber-fraud gang case (fake apps, websites, emails, VOIP/APK/phishing tools per prosecution); petitioner's role alleged as accommodation, language assistance and protection to main offenders; name surfaced in confessions of arrested accused; investigation ongoing, main accused absconding. Keywords: anticipatory bail, pre-arrest bail, BNSS S.482, cyber crime, fake call centre, bail denied.

What did the court decide?

The investigation is not yet completed; some main accused are still absconding and the police are still collecting key evidence such as digital records and financial transactions. ¶33

Nagi Reddy Fareed Baba Vs The State of Telangana — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted to the petitioner, arrayed as accused No.13 in Crime No. 1786 of 2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶19

Court's answer

The investigation is not yet completed; some main accused are still absconding and the police are still collecting key evidence such as digital records and financial transactions.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

In view of the submissions, the material on record, the incomplete investigation and the outstanding evidence, this Court was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner; the criminal petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Key takeaways

The petitioner's name emerged during additional confessions of the already-arrested accused; despite his claim that he only assisted a relative's bail application as an interested person, the Court found indications that he helped the main accused by providing accommodation, language support and protection, pointing to active involvement in the alleged cyber crimes.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pre-arrest bail under S.482 BNSS refused. Petitioner (Nagi Reddy Fareed Baba), arrayed as A13 in Crime No.1786 of 2025 of Cyber Crime PS, Cyberabad — a case of an illegal fake call centre luring victims with promises of high returns on short-term investments, impersonating reputed e-commerce/financial companies and law-enforcement officers, and extorting money — was alleged by the State to have provided accommodation, language assistance and protection to the main offenders, his name having emerged in additional confessions of the arrested accused (A4–A12 arrested 19.07.2025; counsel submitted they were granted bail on 05.08.2025). Finding serious allegations suggesting active involvement, the investigation incomplete, main accused absconding and digital/financial evidence still to be collected, K. Sujana, J. declined pre-arrest bail and dismissed the petition (01-09-2025).

¶1

[^338s 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10552 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Nagi Reddy Fareed Baba, S/o N.. gubrahmanyeswara rao Aged 39 years, Occ Business, R/o 5-2-10, Near amba satram,^- Bhadrachalam, Khammam.Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 3

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The. State of Telangana,, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana At Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition under section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with crime No 1786 ot 202s dated 1810712025 on the frte of P.S.Cyber Crime Cyberabad in the interest of justice,

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MADHAVI PRIYA MANTENA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed yaser mamoon Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10552 of 2o25

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short tsNSS') for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.13 in Crime No. 1786 of 2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad Commis sionerate.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that on 18.07.2025 a complaint was received from A. Hareesh, SI of Police, Bachupa-lly PS, reporting that, based on credible information from local residents, a gang was suspected of illegally operating a fake call centre from Villa No. 29, SRR Pride, Bachupally. Upon verification, the SRR Pride Welfare Association observed the villa for 2 to 3 days and confrrmed suspicious activities, noting that a group was secretly residing there and frequently making phone calls during night hours. Further inquiry revealed that the gang was involved in serious ryber^{offences,includingluring victims with promises of high} returns on short-term investments, impersonating

¶21

¶22

SKS,J Crl.I'. io.1OS52 of 2O25

¶23

representatives of reputed e-commerce an I financial companies, using fake mobile applications, v.r:bsites, and emails to defraud victims, extorting money thr,t .rgh threats, abusing or intimidating victims who questionec them, and falsely representing themselves as law enforcerr ,:nt officers. Acting on this information, the police visited the ocation and found nine individuals actively running the frir rdulent call centre.

¶24

Heard Smt. Madhavi Priya Manena, lea:'t:ed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sr Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor .1 )pearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submi I ,:d that the FIR contained allegations only against A I to .r. 2, and the petitioner was falsely implicated as A13 without e :ry evidence and that the petitioner did not know any of the ;rccused but had assisted a relative of one accused by e rgagrng al advocate to pursue their bail application. Ht: signed the memo of appearance as al interested persc,r r, and the investigation officer then falsely named him a s A 13. He

¶26

¶27

sxs,J Crl.P.l{o.10552 of 2O25

¶28

further submitted that ,A.4 to Al2 were granted bail on 05.08.2025, and the petitioner had no involvement in the alleged offences and that the investigation officer also threatened the petitioner for information regarding A1 to 43. The petitioner was a law-abiding citizen, had no criminal record, worked as an advocate clerk, and was the sole breadwinner, taking care of his wife's medical treatment. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

¶29

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor the Police verified the villa and found nine individuals running the fraudulent operation, which involved luring victims with promises of high returns, impersonating representatives of reputed companies, using fake applications, websites, and emails, extorting money through threats, abusing victims, and misrepresenting themselves as law enforcement officials. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, atrd A4 to Al2 were arrested or 19.07.2025, while others remained absconding. The name of petitioner/Al3 emerged during additional confessions of the arrested accused, and he was informed to the court. The prosecutor

¶30

¶31

SKS,J Crl- lr.^rlo- 10552 of 2025

¶32

submitted that A1 to A13, inciuding the petitio:r.rr, formed a gang to commit cybercrimes, using internet toc ls, software, APK files, VOIP applications, and phishing err z tls to cheat large numbers of innocent people and collect tf :ir personal information. A.2 and A13 provided accommodat ( n, ianguage assistance, and protection to the main offenders, while A4 to A12 were merely employees. Therefore, he pral.< d the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶33

In the light of the submissions made t y both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material ivaiiable on record, it appears that there are serious allegat cns againsr. the petilioner. The investigation so far suggests hat he may have helped the main accused by providing accc nmodation, language support, and protection, which points r : his active involvement in the alleged cyber crimes. EverL though the petitioner claims he only helped someone with l:,;al support, his name came up during the statements of o,lt.er accused who were already arrested. As seen from tit I record, it appears that the role of the petitioner is that he lrelped some others who were just working under the ma::l accused. Moreover, the investigation is not yet completed. .jome of the

¶34

¶35

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1O552^{of 2()25}

¶36

¶37

majnaccusedarestillabsconding,andthepolicearestill collecting key^{evidence like digital records and financial} transactions.Therefore,thisCourtiSnotinclinedtogrant pre-arrest bail^{to the petitioner and the criminal petition lacks} merit and^{the sameis liableto be dismissed'}

¶38

Accordingly,^{this criminal petition is dismissed}

¶39

Miscellaneous^{applications, if any pending'shall stand}

¶40

closed.

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SD/. B. REKHA^RANI ISTANT REGISTRAR \ ,. SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,