1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.22 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Mr.R.Siva Sai Swarup, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. He is a law-abiding citizen. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Petition.

3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law and urged to dismiss the Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. On perusal of the record, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1. The petitioner was arrested on 13.08.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 52 days. This Court, in Crl.P.No.9675 of 2025, vide order dated 09.10.2025, granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with Cr.No.31 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri. A learned coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.4541 of 2025, vide order dated 01.02.2025, directed the police not to arrest the petitioner in connection with Cr.No.22 of 2024 without following due process of law.

6. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner had availed a loan amount of Rs.6.5 Crores from the bank by showing 25 fictitious persons as borrowers. There are altogether 30 accused in this case. The prosecution further alleges that the amounts were received by the petitioner and his wife through their respective bank accounts.

7. The petitioner was granted relief under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’/Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ in connection with Cr.No.564 of 2021 of Kovvur Town Police Station. In the said case, he was arrested and subsequently enlarged on regular bail. So far, 47 witnesses have been examined.

8. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 950), wherein, at paragraph No.19, it was held as under:

                  19.It is settled law that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant/respondent No.2 was required to show that the appellant had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation of not fulfilling the agreement for sale of the said property. Such a culpable intention right at the beginning when the promise was made cannot be presumed but has to be made out with cogent facts. In the facts of the present case, there is a clear absence of dishonest and fraudulent intention on the part of the appellant during the agreement for sale nest and fraudulent add that there is no allegation in the FIR or the complaint indicating either expressly or impliedly any intentional deception or fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of the appellant right from the time of making the promise or misrepresentation. Nothing has been said on what the misrepresentations were and how the appellant intentionally deceived the complainant/respondent No.2. Mere allegations by the complainant/respondent No.2 that the appellant failed to execute the agreement for sale and failed to refund the money paid by the complainant/respondent No.2 does not satisfy the test of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part with a valuable security as enshrined under Section 420 IPC.

9. Cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot go together, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., ((2024) 10 SCC 690), and Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058).

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharth v. State of U.P., ((2022) 1 SCC 676)wherein, at paragraph Nos.10 and 11, it was held that arrest is not necessary when there is documentary evidence and the charge sheet has been filed, submits accordingly.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner and that the remand documents were not furnished to him. It is also submitted that 29 accused were deleted from the array of accused, as the prosecution opined that the borrowers were not aware of the sanction of loans in their favour.

12. This Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with Cr.No.31 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri. However, the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner by executing a P.T. Warrant and produced him before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, pursuant to which he was remanded to judicial custody.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the period of incarceration undergone by him and the stage of investigation, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail, subject to certain stringent conditions.

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

                  i. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Rajamahendravaram.

                  ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.

                  iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

                  iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.

                  v. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.

                  vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.

                  vii. 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 affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.