Telangana High Court

Hyderabad Cyber Crimes Court: Bail Denied for Accused in Instagram Job Scam

Updated
Oct 3, 2025 5:51 PM
News Image

Summary: The court has denied bail to Yerroju Kiran Kanth, accused of being part of an online scam involving fake work-from-home jobs. The scam caused significant financial losses for the victims.

The Scam Unveiled

On December 29, 2024, someone reported a scam to the police after losing money in a fake work-from-home scheme. The scam was advertised on Instagram, promising daily pay for simple tasks like giving ratings and reviews. At first, participants were paid Rs. 50 per task, but soon they were tricked into investing in a "welfare task" with promised returns of 30% to 60%.

"I was asked to join a Telegram group and sign up on a website, making payments through different bank accounts and UPI IDs."

The complainant lost Rs. 5,66,701 after being repeatedly asked to pay more to get their money back.

Legal Action Taken

The police filed a case, numbered 21 of 2025, at the Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad. The charges included breaking rules under Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act and several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.).

The Court Hearing

Justice K. Sujana listened to the case. Yerroju Kiran Kanth's lawyer argued that he was innocent and asked for bail before arrest, noting this was the second time they asked. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor disagreed, pointing out that the complainant hadn't gotten any money back and that it was important to question Yerroju Kiran Kanth while he was in custody.

"Yerroju Kiran Kanth worked with other online scammers, providing bank accounts that helped with the scam."

Why Bail Was Denied

Justice K. Sujana stressed how serious the crime was and the financial loss to the complainant. Yerroju Kiran Kanth’s active role in helping the fraud was a key reason. The court noted that giving bail might disrupt the ongoing investigation.

"Considering these factors, Yerroju Kiran Kanth is not entitled to anticipatory bail at this stage."

The decision highlights the court's position on online scams and the importance of thorough investigations in such cases.