Lingampalli Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/A-1 seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.75 of 2025 of Kathlapur Police Station, Jagtial District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 318(4), 351(2), 308(5), 127(2), 143 r/w 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 66-D of IT Act and Section 24 of Immigration Act.

¶13

2 -

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that, on 07.04.2025, the defacto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that the de-facto complainant has joined B.Tech in Veltech University at Chennai and he was searching for job offers in abroad and one of his friends suggested the de-facto complainant to one agent i.e. the petitioner herein and he offered the de-facto complainant a job opportunity as a Data Entry Operator in Bangkok, Thailand and he went to Thailand at the instigation of accused No.1 and accused No.2 along with other accused forced him to do illegal crypto currency business and when the de-facto complainant told them that he was unwilling to do that job, they demanded 25,000 Chinese Yuvan to return his passport. Later, they took his ID card and withheld two months of his salary and he decided to return to India and some of his colleagues advised him to contact Indian Embassy and he reached the Indian Embassy and returned to India. Hence, he requested to take necessary action. Basing on the same, the police registered a case for the above said offences.

¶15

Heard Sri Anirudh Nellikonda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶16

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been

¶17

3 -

¶18

falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 13.11.2025 and the material part of the investigation has already been completed. Therefore, he prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and the investigation is not yet completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶20

In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner is in jail since 13.11.2025. As recorded in the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses LWs.1 to 5, including the investigating officer, had already been examined. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the duration of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.1, subject to the following conditions:

¶21

i. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the

¶22

4 -

¶23

satisfaction of the learned Junior CivilJudge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

¶24

ii. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

¶25