IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RA0\% CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2619 OF 2025 X * X* Between: Golla Ramesh Yadav, S/o Late G.Nattanna, Hindu, aged 44 years. Business, R/o H.No.6/243, Goyageri, Adoni, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh through SHO, I Town PS, Adoni, Kurnool District ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail in the event his arrest in Cr.No.18/2025 dated 11-02-2025 of I Town PS, Adoni, Kurnool District; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent; The Court made the following ukuhk: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 18 of 2025 of I Town Police Station, Adoni, Kurnool District, registered for the offences punishableunder Sections 308(2), 351(2), 308(7) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). 1) The prosecution's case is as follows: The defacto complainant's son operates Madhu Hospital in Adoni, which has been providing NTR Vidya Seva (Arogya Sree) Scheme services with government authorization. A1, A2, and others submitted complaints on 20.01.2025 and 06.02.2025 alleging 2) \ irregularities in the hospital's implementation of the scheme. On 07.02.2025, the defacto complainant contacted A1, who invited him to a meeting on 08.02.2025. During this meeting, A1 and A2 demanded Rs.50,00,000/- to withdraw the complaints, threatening to halt the Arogya Sree services and damage the hospital’s reputation if their demand was refused. After negotiations, they agreed to reduce the amount to Rs.39,00,000/- . On 10.02.2025, they demanded an advance of Rs.5,00,000/-, and under pressure, the defacto complainant transferred Rs. 10,000/- to them via a phone payment app. The defacto complainant, fearing for his family's safety, sought police intervention. Based on the complaint, a case (Cr.No. 18/2025) was registered against A1 and A2 for offences under sections 308(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. When police attempted to serve a notice to A1 and A2, they obstructed and manhandled the officers, leading to another case (Cr.No. 19/2025) under section 121(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS. On 16.02.2025, the police apprehended the accused, who confessed to involvement in Cr.No. 18/2025 in coordination with the petitioner, the proprietor of Vamsi Chaitanya Private Hospital, who had a grievance against the defacto complainant due to the removal of NTR Vidya Seva services from his hospital. A2 voluntarily surrendered, and both were remanded to judicial custody. The investigation officer included section 308(7) of BNS in Cr.No.18 of 2025, establishing the petitioner’s involvement through ATs confession in Cr. No. 19/2025. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner in the complaint, and he was not initially named as an accused. The FIR was registered against A1 and A2 under Sections 208(2) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNSS, with an alteration memo later adding Section 308(7) based on confessional statements of A1 and A2. The petitioner fears that, due to his role as the proprietor of Vamsi Chaitanya Pvt. Hospital, he may be wrongly implicated and arrested in Cr.No. 18/2025. He alleges that the complainant may have conspired with A1 and A2 to 3) 3 damage the petitioner’s reputation using political influence. The petitioner has filed for anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2025 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, but it was dismissed on 05.03.2025. Ttie Sessions court observed that the petitioner might influence the investigation due to his political influence, which he asserts is untrue. He asserts that his about arrest are well-founded, as he claims innocence and is a permanent resident of Adoni with no intention of absconding. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the investigation is still pending. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition as well as in Report. Consequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. In Mahipal V. Rajeshi', the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, prima facie or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused had committed the crime. A Court doesn't need to give elaborate reasons while granting bail, mainly when the case is at the initial stage, and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystallised as such. In Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that; "Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accusea would not misuse his liberty”. concerns 4) 5) the 6) 7) of Maharashtra and another^, 8) ^ (2020) 2 see 118 2 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 4 According to the material placed, no specific overt acts have been attributed against the petitioner, and he was not named as an accused in the FIR. The record indicates that A.1 and A.2 were arrested and produced before the Court, where they were granted bail on 15.02.2025, as the alleged offences are punishable by less than seven years. On 17.02.2025, it appears that A.1 and A.2 were voluntarily surrendered before the Court and were subsequently remanded to judicial custody. On 16.02.2025, an alteration memo was filed, adding an offence under Section 308(7) of the BNS, based on the alleged confessions made by A.1 and A.2. Following these confessions, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused. However, the record does not clarify what prompted A.1 and A.2 to make their confessional statements after being granted bail getting involvement themselves in a serious offence. The petitioner suspects that the case has been fabricated against him, as the de facto complainant, along with A.1 and A.2, allegedly conspired to damage the petitioner’s personal reputation and the reputation of his Vamsi Chaitanya Private Hospital. It appears that, apart from the confession statements made by A.1 and A.2, no other incriminating material has been gathered to suggest the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence. Furthermore, the de facto complainant does not alleged in the report that A.3 was involved in the commission of the offence alongside A.1 and A.2. 9) 10) The learned Sessions Judge, while disposing of the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2025, dated 05.03.2025, observed that the petitioner is a candidate for the MLA post from the Congress (I) party. In the 2024 elections and he was also the proprietor of Vamsi Chaitanya Private Hospitals. 11) Considering this fact, it can be concluded that there is little likelihood of the petitioner abandoning his hospital. No material has been presented to suggest that he has any prior criminal antecedents. Furthermore, there is no material to indicate that any sum of money has been paid to the petitioner. 5 At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subjected to the It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused 12) trial’s outcome, would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra^, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down certain factors and parameters that must be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It further held as follows: 13) 113. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Court must entire available record, particularly the carefully examine the allegations directly attributed to the accused, which are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. It is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.Chidambaram V. Directorate of Enforcement, considering all the earlier judgments, observed that the basic much as the grant of bail that, the accused has the 14) jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same in is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure opportunity of securing fair trial. as that the petitioner failed to cooperate is not available for interrogation. There is no It is not the prosecution's case 15) with the investigation, and he likelihood that the petitioner would abscond from the jurisdiction has expressed willingness to cooperate with the indication of a of the Court. The petitioner investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative, accusations with the intention of harming or The likelihood of levying embarrassing the petitioner through potential arrest is not improbable ^ (2011) 1 see 694 (2019) 9 see 66 crri.r-f‘ Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, this Court views that even if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the prosecution that he will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the petitioner has a permanent abode. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the nature of the accusations. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner would not impede the ongoing investigation. 16) prima 17) Upon careful perusal of the material on record, as there is no risk of interference with the ongoing investigation by the petitioner, this Court finds that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under certain conditions: i) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Adoni, Kurnool District, within two (2) weeks from today. On such surrender, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer, ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer and when required, and he 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 or to any police officer. as 18) It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present petition without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by observations in this Order. the 7 -.19) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU assistant R STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER For To, 1. The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Adoni District. One CC to Sri. J.U.M.V.Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy Kurnool 2. 3. 4. MM high court TIWR,J DATED:07/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2619 of 2025 ■.V< allowed