1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 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.434 of 2026 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNS‟).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant entered into an agreement with the accused for construction of a house on Plot No.20 at Raghurama Nagar, Sattenapalli, for a total consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. It is alleged that the de-facto complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- in October 2024 and Rs.20,00,000/- in November 2024 to the petitioner in the presence of his friend. Despite receiving Rs.30,00,000/-, the accused allegedly failed to commence the promised construction despite repeated requests. When the de-facto complainant questioned the accused about the same, they allegedly threatened him with dire consequences. Accordingly, the de-facto complainant lodged a report on 18.06.2026, based on which FIR No.434 of 2026 was registered.

3. Mr.S.Dilip Jaya Ram, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature arising out of a house construction agreement. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the affairs of Accused No.2‟s real estate business and that there is no material to show any dishonest intention or mens rea on his part from the inception of the transaction.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complaint was lodged after an unexplained delay of more than 21 months and that the present case has been initiated as a counterblast to the earlier criminal case lodged by the petitioner against the de-facto complainant. It is also submitted that substantial investigation has already been completed; the petitioner is a permanent resident of Palnadu District. He has got fixed abode. The petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prays that the petitioner may be granted pre-arrest bail.

5. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the petition and submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint and that the matter requires thorough investigation. It is submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have participated in the transaction pursuant to which the de-facto complainant paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- towards construction of the house.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences and that the plea that the dispute is civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for collecting relevant evidence and verifying the financial transactions. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

7. On the other hand, Mr.Patil Yugandher Reddy, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2, concurs with the submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner regarding his involvement in the alleged transaction. It is submitted that the de-facto complainant paid a substantial amount of Rs.30,00,000/- towards construction of the house, but the accused failed to fulfil the promise and subsequently threatened the de-facto complainant.

8. The learned Legal Aid Counsel further submits that the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences and that the plea of the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that the petitioner‟s custodial interrogation may be necessary. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2.

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

11. Now the point for consideration is:

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

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata ((2024) 2 SCR 1001), wherein, at paragraph No.7, their Lordships referred to Section 182 of the Contract Act and explained the terms “agency” and “agent”. At paragraph No.8, their Lordships elaborated upon the relationship between the principal, agent and the third party.

13. It is apposite to extract paragraph No.8 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:

                  8. Agency is therefore a triangular relationship between the principal, agent and the third party. In order to understand this relationship, one has to examine the inter se relationship between the principal and the third party and the agent and the third party. When we examine whether a legal relationship of a principal and agent exists, the following factors/aspects should be taken into consideration:

                  (a) The essential characteristic of an agent is the legal power vested with the agent to alter his principal's legal relationship with a third party and the principal's co-relative liability to have his relations altered.7

                  (b) As the agent acts on behalf of the principal, one of the prime elements of the relationship is the exercise of a degree of control by the principal over the conduct of the activities of the agent. This degree of control is less than the control exercised by the master on the servant, and is different from the rights and obligations in case of principal to principal and independent contractor relationship.

                  (c) The task entrusted by the principal to the agent should result in a fiduciary relationship. The fiduciary relationship is the manifestation of consent by one person to another to act on his or her behalf and subject to his or her control, and the reciprocal consent by the other to do so.8

                  (d) As the business done by the agent is on the principal's account, the agent is liable to render accounts thereof to the principal. An agent is entitled to remuneration from the principal for the work he performs for the principal.

14. Further, their Lordships, at paragraph No.41, held that the relationship of an agent is distinct from that of a master and servant, principal-to-principal, or employer and independent contractor. An agent is one who has the authority to affect the legal position of the principal by entering into contracts or dealing with the principal‟s property. The existence of such an agency relationship has to be determined with reference to the factors indicated in clauses (a) to (d) of paragraph No.8 of the judgment. Thus, the term “agent” is to be understood in a restricted sense for the purpose of Explanation (i) to Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act.

15. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Jayant Sanjeeva Shetty v. State of Maharashtra (Bail Application No.4989 of 2024, dated 12.08.2025), wherein, at paragraph No.54, it is held as under:

                  54. The Supreme Court in N. Raghavavender (supra), has made it clear that "entrustment" under Sections 405 and 409 IPC is not limited to formal trust arrangements. It covers any situation where property is given to someone with control over it, along with an obligation to use it for a particular purpose. In that case, even a bank officer's misuse of funds that he controlled in his official capacity was enough to show criminal breach of trust. Here, the applicant, as Managing Director, had control over investors' funds in a role similar to a fiduciary, even though the company had no legal right to take such deposits in the first place. The alleged diversion to his personal accounts is, on the face of it, inconsistent with the investment schemes promised to the depositors. Whether the applicant legally qualifies as an "agent" or comes within the stricter category of Section 409 IPC will be decided at trial. But for the purpose of bail, there is enough material to say that a prima facie case under Sections 405/406/409 IPC exists.

16. Thus, the High Court of Bombay, in the aforesaid judgment, while relying upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh ((2021) 18 SCC 70), held that “entrustment” under Sections 405 and 409 of “the IPC‟ is not confined to formal trust arrangements, but extends to situations where property is entrusted to a person with control over it and an obligation to use it for a particular purpose.

17. On perusal of the averments in the complaint, it is the grievance of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner has committed the offences of cheating and criminal intimidation. It is alleged that an agreement was entered into for construction of a house plot for a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-, pursuant to which the de-facto complainant paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to Accused Nos.1 and 2. However, for one reason or another, Accused Nos.1 and 2 stopped the construction activity, and except for laying the foundation, no further construction was carried out. When the de-facto complainant questioned Accused Nos.1 and 2 regarding the same, they allegedly threatened him with dire consequences. It is also apposite to refer to the fact that one Kadiyala Nikitha lodged a complaint against the de facto complainant, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.122 of 2025 on 26.05.2025.

18. Having regard to the nature of the transactions between the petitioner/Accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1, subject to the following stringent conditions.

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

                  i. In the event of his arrest, Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials.

                  ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till completion of the investigation.

                  iii. In the event the petitioner/accused No.1 fails to appear before the Investigating Officer, the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be liable to be cancelled.

                  iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.

                  v. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Investigating Officer concerned.

                  vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.