logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1169 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 4788 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Uddagiri Chaitanya Ramu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Its Station House Officer, Amaravati
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Karthiksiddartha Saladi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 09-07-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 482 -
Judgment :-

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.82 of 2026 of Jangareddigudem Police Station, Eluru District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

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

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prior to 21/02/2026, the complainant, Nagaraju Dhana Lakshmi, had pledged 270 grams of gold with IIFL Gold Loans, Jangareddigudem, and obtained a loan of Rs.13,00,000/-. The branch manager, Uddagiri Chaitanya Ramu, gained her trust and repeatedly obtained OTPs from her under the pretext of interest payments. When she visited the branch on 20/12/2025 to repay the loan and redeem her gold, she was informed that no loan existed in her name and that the manager had resigned.She later discovered that the accused had allegedly misused her OTPs to fraudulently obtain higher loans on her pledged gold in the names of other persons without her knowledge..

4. Mr. Karthik Siddhartha Saladi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.2 submits that the FIR is false, vague, and based on unsubstantiated allegations arising out of a financial dispute that has been given a criminal colour. It is argued that the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out, and the complaint lacks specific transaction details or documentary evidence. The Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents, is willing to cooperate with the investigation, and there is no need for custodial interrogation. The Petitioner further submits that vague allegations, misuse of criminal law, and unnecessary arrest are impermissible, and anticipatory bail should be granted. The Petitioner submits that he is not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence and that denial of anticipatory bail would cause irreparable prejudice to his reputation, livelihood, and family and urged to allow the pre-arrest bail.

5. Per contra, Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law.

6. It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed.

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

               “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”

9. As seen from the record, while working as Branch Manager of IIFL Finance Limited, the Petitioner is alleged to have dishonestly obtained OTPs from the de-facto complainant and misused them to transfer her pledged gold ornaments into the names of other persons, thereby securing higher loan amounts without her knowledge. The de-facto complainant had pledged 270 grams of gold and obtained a loan of Rs.13,00,000/-. When she later approached the branch to repay the loan and redeem her gold, she was informed that no loan existed in her name. In her inquiry, she came to know that the Petitioner had already resigned from his employment. The investigation is in progress, and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required. So far, six witnesses have been examined. They are L.Ws.1 to 6. There are specific overt acts or accusations levelled against the Petitioner. In view of the specific allegations and overt acts attributed to the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as it would amount to granting protection or shield to the persons against whom specific allegations are levelled, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab ((1980) 2 SCC 565) and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2020) 5 SCC 1) .Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal