1. The instant Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(For short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused No.52, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B read with Sections 34, 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short “IPC‟) and Sections 7, 7(a), 8, 13 (1) (b) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(for short “PC Act‟).

2. Heard Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Javaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for Respondents / State.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.52 would submit that no prima facie case, is made out against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the arrest and continued detention of the Petitioner are wholly unwarranted in law and on facts. The Petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, and has been incarcerated for a substantial period, despite the investigation against him has been completed.

           Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner attended before the Special Investigation Team for 15 times and his statements under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS (Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C) have also been recorded. Even the prosecution records do not attribute any specific overt act to the Petitioner, nor establish his involvement in any conspiracy or common intention. It is contended that, on the advice of Accused No.9, the Petitioner had taken the flat on rent, wherein the alleged amount was kept and the Petitioner is the incharge of the said flat.

           Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the allegations against the Petitioner are relating to facilitation in the receipt of kickbacks amount, its storage, or movement, which does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the serious offences invoked, particularly Section 409 IPC. There is no material to demonstrate entrustment or breach of trust in a fiduciary capacity, and thus the application of such provision is clearly misconceived and intended only to aggravate the nature of the accusations.

           It is further submitted that the invocation of provisions relating to conspiracy and common intention is unsupported by any cogent material. The charge sheets filed against co-Accused do not implicate the Petitioner in any criminal activity. Learned Senior Counsel argues that continued custody serves no purpose, as the investigation qua the Petitioner is complete and no further custodial interrogation is required. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has already cooperated extensively with the investigation, having appeared before the authorities on multiple occasions, even prior to being arrayed as an Accused. His conduct demonstrates that he is not a flight risk. His passport has been surrendered, and appropriate safeguards such as a lookout notice was already issued.

           It is also urged that the principle of parity squarely applies, as several co-accused, against whom allegations are equal or more serious, have already been granted bail. The Petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident with strong roots in society, and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence.

           It is further submitted that the wife of the Petitioner has recently delivered a child and requires care and support. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon‟ble Court, to cooperate with the trial, and not to influence witnesses in any manner.

           In these circumstances, it is submitted that continued incarceration amounts to pre-trial punishment and violates the Petitioner‟s fundamental rights. Hence, prayed to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents/State would submit that the Petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail in view of the serious nature of the allegations and his active role in the commission of the offence. It is contended that the materials collected during the course of investigation clearly indicate that the Petitioner was engaged by Accused No.9 for the specific purpose of collecting kickback amounts, facilitating their storage, and coordinating their distribution among other accused persons for eventual disbursement to voters during the General Elections. Such acts, it is submitted, demonstrate conscious participation in a larger unlawful scheme, attracting the rigours of the offences invoked.

           Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the conduct of the Petitioner disentitles him from any equitable relief, as he had, without valid authorization, travelled to Nepal, and a Look Out Circular issued against him continues to remain in force. This conduct raises a serious apprehension regarding his intention to evade the process of law. It is also submitted that credible inputs suggest that the Petitioner is attempting to flee to Dubai, thereby reinforcing the likelihood of absconding if released on bail.

           It is further argued that the case of the Petitioner stands on a different footing from that of the co-accused who have been granted bail, and therefore, the principle of parity is wholly inapplicable. Unlike the other accused, the Petitioner is directly linked to the handling and movement of illicit funds, and the investigation qua him is still ongoing, particularly with respect to the money trail, which is yet to be fully unearthed.

           Learned Senior Counsel would emphasize that at this crucial stage, releasing the Petitioner on bail would seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation, as there exists a real possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses connected to the financial transactions under scrutiny. In view of the pending investigation, the gravity of allegations, and the substantial risk of flight, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

5. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one and grant of the same is the judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. Aditya Sarda,( 2025 SCC Online SC 764) held that:

           “18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court has consistently emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes.

           ***

           23. Given the above settled legal position, it is no more resintegra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep-rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds. Therefore, such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country.”

           (emphasis supplied)

6. Recently, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar & Anr(2025 INSC 1396), set aside an anticipatory bail granted to an accused individual charged with embezzling over ₹3 crores. While the High Court granted bail on the grounds that half the money was returned and the accused was willing to disclose assets, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court found this reasoning as untenable because it ignored a status report stating the accused was on the run and that his custodial interrogation was utmost required for a fair investigation. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court emphasized that granting extraordinary relief like anticipatory bail without considering the gravity of the offence or the accused's conduct constitutes a failure to apply relevant legal principles.

7. In the present case, considering of the rival submissions and the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material connecting the Petitioner to the alleged offences. The records, as placed by the prosecution, indicate that the Petitioner was entrusted with responsibilities relating to handling and movement of funds which are alleged to be part of a larger unlawful arrangement of funds. The contention that no overt act is attributed to the Petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage, inasmuch as the material on record prima facie shows his involvement in facilitating key aspects of the alleged transactions. Whether such acts ultimately satisfy the ingredients of the offences invoked is a matter for trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of bail.

8. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the State that the investigation, particularly concerning the financial trail, is still in progress. In cases involving economic offences, the investigation requires continuous efforts to unravel the complete chain, and premature release of an accused, who is allegedly connected to such transactions may impede the process.

9. The conduct of the Petitioner in travelling abroad without authorization and the existence of a Look Out Circular against him raise legitimate concerns regarding the likelihood of his absconding. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the Petitioner may evade the process of law cannot be said to be unfounded. In such circumstances, the plea that he is not a flight risk does not inspire confidence.

10. The argument based on parity is also not tenable in the facts of the present case. The role attributed to the Petitioner, particularly in relation to handling and coordinating the movement of alleged illicit funds, distinguishes his case from that of the co-accused, who have been granted bail. Parity cannot be claimed in a mechanical manner, and each case must be examined on its own facts and the specific role assigned to the accused.

11. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the role attributed to the Petitioner, the stage of investigation, and the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution regarding absconding and tampering with evidence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.