logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 027 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 12405 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Barre Jaya Raju & Others Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Public Prosecutor, C.I.D, High Court Of AP, Amaravathi & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Katchala Chandra Sekhar Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondents: D. Purnachandra Reddy, Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 05-01-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 420, 403, 409 read with 120‑B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

2. Catch Words:
- Pre‑arrest bail
- Anticipatory bail
- Custodial interrogation
- NPA (Non‑Performing Asset)
- Civil suit
- Surety
- Self‑bond

3. Summary:
The petitioners, accused of offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, sought pre‑arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, claiming false implication and hardship to their families. The prosecution opposed, arguing the investigation was at a sensitive stage and custodial interrogation was essential. The court considered the gravity of the allegations, the loan defaults, and the pending civil recovery suit, but nonetheless found no sufficient ground to deny bail. Consequently, the court granted pre‑arrest bail with stringent conditions, including execution of a self‑bond, regular reporting to police, non‑interference with witnesses, travel restrictions, and surrender of passports.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.42 of 2022 of CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 403, 409 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri Katchala Chandra Sekhar Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by them. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to their dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are law-abiding citizens with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. Petitioners undertake to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of their continued presence as and when required.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioners have already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4.

5. Per contra, Mrs. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioners may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law.

6. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioners, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process.

7. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 obtained one loan from the State Bank of India, he is the borrower and he stood as guarantor for four loans. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2, Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3, Petitioner No.4/Accused No.4 had taken one loan each. The crime is of the year, 2022. The loan amount was Rs.80,00,000/-, only an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- was paid at the initial stage and Rs.67,00,000/- were due. The accounts of the Petitioners were declared NPA. As per E-auction the properties of the Petitioners were sold in auction and an amount of Rs.97,00,000/- was received. There is a Civil Suit filed in the year 2024 for recovery of amounts from the Petitioners.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:

                  i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, they shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a self-bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

                  ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required;

                  iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

                  iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

                  v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

                  vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claims that they does not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.

 
  CDJLawJournal