Gajendran Subramanyam Alias Gajendran Subramanyam Vs The State of Telangana

Gajendran Subramanyam^{Alias GajendranSubramanyam,S/o Murugeshan} erj"nOrrn^{(Late),aged- about 39 years,Occ. Private Employee,Rio H No 111l55'} Zna ftoor,^{OOOO1S. f..Uo H. No. 28-1387, Balaji Colony, Chittoor Town and District,} Andhra Pradesh state^- 517001

¶10

...pETITroNER/AccusED

¶11

AND

¶12

TheStateofTelangana,ThroughP-sCyberCrimesRachakonda'RepbyPublic prosecutor'

¶13

...RES..NDENT/..MPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under section^{4BO& 483 of BNSS prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the^{Memorandumof Groundsof criminalPetition,the High court may be} pleased to enlarge the^{petitioner/Accusedon bail in Crime No. ,1276 of 2025 of} Police station cyber^{crimeRachakondafor the alleged offences u/s 316(2),} 318(4),319(2)BNS,66-C,66.DlTA-2000.2008pendingonthefileoftheHonble SpecialJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass(Excise),Rangareddy-VAdditional Judicial Magistrate^{of First class - cum - V Additional Junior civil Judge,} Rangareddy^{(D) at L B.Nagar'}

¶15

This Petition coming^{on for hearing,uponperusing the Memorandum} of Grounds of criminal^{Petition and upon hearing the argumentsof} srirvlANGASAlPRAKASHGOUD,AdvocateforthePetitionerandthe Public Prosecutor^{(TG) on behalfof the sole Respondent'}

¶16

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶17

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THESTATE OF TEI ANGANA}

¶18

AT HYDERABAI)

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE K. Sf,' ANA}

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.L6226of 2O25}

¶21

DATE:19.12.2o25

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

Gajendran Subramanyam^{(a] Gajendran Subram:rrvam}

¶24

. -... petiri^{I rer/accused}

¶25

And

¶26

The State of^Telangana,

¶27

Rep. by Public^Prosecutor'

¶28

Hlgh Court^{for the State of Tclangana,}

¶29

at Hvderabad.

¶30

..Respondett .^comPlainant

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This Criminal^{Petition ishled prayingt ris Courtto} cnlarge the^{petitioner on bail u'ho is arrayed ::; accrlsed in} Crime No.1276^{of2025 before the Cyber ( rimcs Police} Station, Rachakonda^{Commissionerate,regis t 'red lorthc}

¶33

- <sup>-*-T

¶34

2

¶35

SKS,J Crl.P.No.16226 of 2025

¶36

offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2) of BNS and Section 66-C and 66-D of IT Act, 2O00-2OO8.

¶37

The brief fac[s of the case arc thaL the complainant, a retired employee, \ ras induced through Facebook and WhatsApp by a woman named Dr- Veena Choudary to invest in an online USD trading platform called NFM. Believing her assurances, he invested $2,OOO and latcr transferred Rs.2,5O,0OO as "[ax" for asset release, after u,hich the accused became unreachable. He suflered a Lotal loss of Rs.2,69,221 /- and the crime was registered for the above said offences. The petitioner was later shown as accused No.15 and was produced on a PT warrant, though he had aiready been granted bail in a connected case (Crime No.37/2025) after prolonged incarceration.

¶38

Heard Sri M. Sai Prakash Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the rcspondent - State.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no role in the alleged offence and was falsely

¶40

7

¶41

)

¶42

SKS,J crl-P)t' .16226 oI2025

¶43

I I

¶44

implicated without^{any material linking him to tt'r fraud and} that no money^{was evertransferred to him, no a legatlonin} the complaint^{rcferredto him, and he was made ' scapegoat} merely on vague statements.^{He contendedth: r all allcged} offences were^{punishablebelowseven years' th: mandatory} procedure under Section^{35(3) BNSS was ignord, andno} custodial rnterrogation^{was required as nothingcmained to} be recovered. Therefore,^{he prayed the Court to} lrant^{bail to} the petitioncr bv^{allowing this CriminalPetition'}

¶45

On the other hand,^{learnedAdditionalPubliProsecutor} opposeci the submissions^{made by the learned i:t r nsel for the} petitioner stating that the^{there are seriousalleg:1 ons agairlst} the petitioner. Further,^{theinvestigation} 'r^{ls notvet} completed. At this^{stage, granting of bail to tl e pe titioner} does not arise. Therefore,^{he prayed the Court t: dismiss [he} criminal petition.

¶46

I n the light of the^{submissions mad e|} 1'^{both the} learned counsel and upon a^{careful perusal o{he materlal} placed on record, it appears that^{the allegations against the} petitioner disclose a systematic^{modusoperarli of luring} innocent victims, particularly senior^{citizens,Llrr( er the guise}

¶47

4

¶48

SKS,J Crl.P. o.16226 of 2025

¶49

of online investment schemes. The record placed before this Court, including the list of cases furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecttor, pima facie indicates that Lhe petitioner is involved in multiplc similar oflences of cyber fraud. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested in the present crime on 31. 1O.2O25 pursuant to the registration of FIR dated 01. 1O.2025 and that he is in^judicial custody since O 1. I2.2O25. Though the petitioner^{was granted} bail in another crime, the same by itself does^{not enlitle him} to claim bail as a matter of right in the^presentcase. Therefore, considering the facts at'rd circumstances of^the case, at this stage, this Court is not inclined [o^{grant bail to} the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶51

Miscellaneous applicalions, il an-v pending, shall stand

¶52

closed.

¶53

SD/-K BHAVANISWAM; ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,.,^ t9-

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. TheVAdditional Metropolitan Magistrate, cumVAdditional JuniorCivil Judge, Cyberabad at^L.B.Nagar.

¶58

a. The st2tion Hor.rse Officer. P. S Cvber Crimes Rachakonda,^Ramchakonda'

¶59

C-rd

¶60

-'- Z',

¶61

One CC to SRt. MANGA SATPRAKASH GOUD Advocr e [OpUC] 4. Two ccs to the ADDTTONAL puBlrc pRosEcuroR, High court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶62