Case Law Details
Routhu Sai Kondala Rao @ Sai Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving UPI fraud, benami, and hawala transactions. The case, registered under Crime No. 4 of 2025 by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam, involves allegations of illegal betting and financial transactions amounting to crores of rupees. The petitioner was charged under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Information Technology Act, and the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act. The court considered the petitioner’s plea under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which allows the High Court to prevent abuse of legal procedures and ensure justice.
The prosecution’s case was based on a police raid conducted on January 6, 2025, at a flat in Visakhapatnam, where multiple accused, including the petitioner, were allegedly involved in online and offline betting. During the raid, law enforcement officials discovered substantial evidence, including suspicious transactions from mobile phones linked to the accused. The investigation revealed significant amounts of money being routed through multiple bank accounts via UPI, with potential connections to benami and hawala operations. However, the petitioner contended that his involvement was based solely on the confessional statement of another accused (A3), and he was falsely implicated in the case.
The court observed that in a previous order dated February 12, 2025, anticipatory bail had already been granted to co-accused A4 and A5 in Criminal Petition No. 1188 of 2025. Given that the petitioner’s role was argued to be on a better footing compared to the co-accused, the court found it reasonable to extend similar relief. Judicial precedents emphasize that confessional statements of co-accused alone are insufficient grounds for arrest unless corroborated by independent evidence. The Supreme Court, in cases like State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), has held that mere allegations without substantive proof cannot justify denial of bail.
Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including the execution of a personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, mandatory weekly appearances before the Station House Officer, and full cooperation with the investigation. The petitioner was also directed not to threaten or influence witnesses. The order ensures the petitioner’s rights while allowing the police to continue their investigation. With this ruling, the court reaffirmed the principle that bail, rather than jail, is the norm unless concrete evidence justifies detention.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/Accused to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.4 of 2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111 (2), 319 (2), 318 (4) read with 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNS’) and Sections 66C, 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008 (for brevity ‘the ITA’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (for brevity ‘the APG Act’).
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 06.01.2025, on receipt of credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam along with other police personnel conducted search at Flat No.610, Gayatri Towers, opposite Water Tank and Pump House, backside of Polamamba temple, Doctors Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam and found that accused No.3 along with accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 was conducting offline and online betting. As per the confessional statement of accused No.3, he used to pool fund for betting. On verification of mobile phones of accused No.3, police found total eighty two suspicious transactions. The police registered the case in Crime No.4 of 2025 for the aforesaid offences.
3. Perused the record.
4. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the Cyber Crime Police, on credible information, commenced the investigation on 06.01.2025 and crores of rupees with number of bank accounts, UPI transactions including binami and hawala transactions was involved in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basing on the confessional statement of A3, the petitioner herein is falsely implicated in the present crime and the police are trying to apprehend him. He further submits that this Court, vide orders dated 12.02.2025 passed in Crl. Petition No.1188 of 2025, granted anticipatory bail to A4 and A5 and the case of the petitioner herein stands on a better footing than that of A4 and A5. This Court, considering the material on record, the nature of accusation, prima facie case and stage of investigation, is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein.
5. Accordingly, in the event of arrest of petitioner herein in the above crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officials, and also on condition that the petitioner herein shall make himself available for investigation as and when required and that he shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner herein shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned one in a week i.e. on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
Author Bio
