-- I lN THE HIGH COURT OE. ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: tb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO-. 5692 OF 2025 Betwee n : Tadi Venkata Reddy, S/o Shabara Reddy, Aged 57 years, Occ-. Business, R/o MahalakShmi Div-lnes Nagarjuna Street, Ashok Nagar, Eluru Eluru Distr'lct, Erstwhile West Godvari District. ...petitioner/let Accused AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Kongala Srihari, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged 38 years, R/o D.No: 16A-1- 125/ll, AIla Nani Colony, Eluru, Eluru D'lstrict, Erstwhile West Godavari D-lstrict. ...Respondent/Defacto Complainant petition under section 482 of BNSS, 2023, is filed Praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed -ln support of the cr'Iminal Petition, the High Court may be Pleased tO grant AnticipatOry Bail to the Petitioner by directing the police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with crime No. 257 of 2024 of Eluru " Town Police Station, Eluru District. The pet'ltiOn coming On for hearing, upon Perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri petluri Naga Raju, Advocate for the Petitioner and Of Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1, the Court made the following APHCO10276042025 IN THE HIGH,,COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH + AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5692/2025 Between : Tadi Venkata Reddy [3369] .,.PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/CO'MPLAINANT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1) This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, tBNSSJ) is filed on behalf of the petitioner / A.1 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.257 of 2024 of EIuru ll Town Police Station, EIuru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 308(5), 351(2), 74, 77, 78,111(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, cBNS'). 2) The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the defacto complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- at an interest rate of 2% from the uncle of Medapati Sudhakara Reddy, i.e., the petitioner / A.1. Subsequently, A.2, A.3, 2 and one vldya sagar vlslted the residence of the defacto complalnant durI'ng hl's absence. Driring their' visit, they allegedly behaved indecently with the complainant's wife and coerced her I'ntO handl-ng over three blank promissory notes bearing her signature, along with a gold ring. lt I-S further alleged that A.2 pulled the saree of the complaI-nant's wl'fe and made several l'mproper demands, including the extortion of a substantial amount of money from her 3) Learned counsel for the petI'tiOner/A.1 submits that the complaint contains no specific overt acts agaI'nSt the petitioner, and the alleged offences are solely attributed to A.2 to A.4. It I-s contended that the essentl'al ingredients of the offences are not made out agal'nst the petltI-Oner, nor IS there any evI'dence I|ndiCatjng his knowledge of or I-nVOIVement jn the alleged coercion or extortion,- the petI'tiOnerjs antI'CiPatOry ba" (Crl.M.P.No.201 of 2025) was erroneously disnll'SSed by the V Additional Dl-strict and sessions Judge, Eluru, on 29.04.2025,I the petitI-Oner js a law-abl-ding cI-tl-Zen with a fixed residence, wilII-ng to furnish surety and comply with any conditions,- the investigatI-On I|S substantially complete, and there is no risk of tamperI'ng With evidence. In view of the imminent threat of arrest and the hardship ll-kely to be caused, the learned counsel prays for the grant of antI-Cl-PatOry bail. 4) On the other hand, sri G. NeelothpaI, learned Assl-slant publI-C prosecutor, appearl'ng for the Respondent/state, opposes the grant of anticjpatory bail on the ground that the investI'gatiOn I-S Still pendl-ng. 5) I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated theI-r subml'ssl-ons on par with the contentions presented jn the petition as we" as in the Report. corfsequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. 6) "ah,-pa/ v. Ra/'esfr7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the court while consI'dering a bail application, to assess whether, based on 1 (2020) 2 SCC 118 =| rill 3 a the eviden{iary record, pr,-ma rae,'e or reasonable grounds exist {o believe that the accused had committed the crime. I 7) A Court doesn't need to give elaborate reasons while granting bail, mainly when the case is a{ the initial stage, and the allegations of the offences A by the accused would not have been crystallised as such. a) ln Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and =nothePl r the Hon'ble Apex Court observed th.at: ''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 accused would not misuse his liberty''. 9) The learned' counsel for the petitioner contends that monetary transactions took place between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The petitioner has filed S.T.C.No.130 of 2024 against the de facto complainant under Sections 200 of the Cr.P.C., 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881, and 420 of the lPC. Furthermore, the complaI-nt lodged by the de facto complainant expressly refers to the nlonetary transactions between himself and the petitioner/A.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy of the order in Crl.P.No.9029 of 2024, wherein this Court was pleased to grant bail to A.2 to A.4. , 10) The reading of the order in Crl.P.No.9029 of 202®4 indicates that the allegation made by the defacto complainant against the accused persons is that he has borrowed money from A.1 in the year 2023; despite payments Of several amounts of money, still A.1 was not satisfied with it; in the yea+ 2024, the petitioners / A.2 to A.4 forcibly came and demanding repayments Of 6 money which were not due. A reading of the allegations suggests that A.2 to A.4 forcibly entered the de facto complainant]s house and harassed his wife. upon perusal of the report, i{ is evident that'no specific allegation has been made against A.1, stating that he went to the complainant's residence, 2 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 I I I 4 threatened hl's vyife, and ha_rassed her. However, the material on record does not dI'SCIOSe any specific ac6usatjons agal-nst the petitIOner/Al that dllreCtly implicate hl'm in the commissl'on of the offence, other than the exI|Stence of a f''nancjal transaction between him and the de facto complainant. Therefore, + thI'S Court is of the considered vI-eW that the possjbl'lity of the complal'nt being filed against the petitioner due to the exl-stI-ng monetary dispute and the fI-lI'ng of a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cannot be ruled out. ll) The defacto complajnant has contended that he has repaid most of the amount. However, I-tb appears that no receI|PtS Or any written endorsements evI'dencing such payments have been produced. This issue, however, I-S a matter to be adJ-udI'Cated in S.T.C.No.130 of 2024. upon inquI-ry, the learned I Ass[-stan{ pubII-C Prosecutor submI'tS, based On jnStruCtl-OnS received, that no crI'minal antecedents have been reported agal-nst the pet['tioner. t 12) At this stage, the allegations against the petjtjoner are subjected to the trjal's outcome. lt js settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper wI-th,the prosecutI-On eV[-denCe Or intjmjdate the wl'tnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused trI-ed lfor such tamperjng/intjmI'datI-On. +l?) . :n siddharam satlingappa Mhetre v. state of IVIaharashtra3, the Hon]b[e Apex court 'Iajd down'cer{ain factors and parameters that must be considered while dealing vyjth antI-CI'PatOry bat-I. ]t further held as follows.- 1F:::_Ar_r:st s,poulq be the last option, and it should be restricted to thh::::^x:e+pLt!Of_aI_ , case? Where I arre:i-Ing-i;e--;-C:;S;; i';;;;:ruatiLvUe b^a^sv::.,?: the fa:ts and circumstances :f ih-at -;;:;.-ih': ;;:v; u:;:t ca::ae:uaI:!^n^exJ:_:::,e ,i,h.: .ePt-Ire available rec;;i,- igivic-;I"a';;''ut;`e a:!ehgo:i:1n+S^::r:^ctyyJ =tt:ibute,d tO the accus;d, ;;I-c\; =rer::`;rv:;uo';:te;I ;-y other material and circumstances on record. 3 (2011) 1 SCC 694 c`*+-i_=_-±-_----< -,--_ 5 6 fl 14) It I-S also a we"-accepted prI-nCiPle that bai"s the rule and the jaj"s the eEXnC,e^P_i:a_:_'::4e Hon'ble Apex court in i.chidambar;; i.-'ii`;:c::;:i-e`l :f I Enforeemenf4, considering a" the ,earlier judgments, observed that the basic a JurlSPrudence relatlng to ba" remains the sam6 I'n as much as the grant of ba" is the rule and refusal l's the exception to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securl-ng fair trial. ® 15) lt IS not the prosecutIOn's case that the petltIOner failed to cooperate wI-th the I-nVeStigat,Ion, and he is not available for I-nterrogatI-On. There l's no indicatIOn Of a llkellhood that the petltIOner would abscond froin the JurISdlCtI'On of the court. The petjtjoner has expressed wI''lI-nghess to cooperate with the investigation agency. The objectlof the bail I-S neitrler punjtI'Ve nor preventative. The likelihood of levyI'ng accusations with the intention of harming or I embarrassing the p:titjoner through pofentI'al arrest is not improbable, especially in the context of monetary transactions. 1 I I 16) G,'ven the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the prl'ma I facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to thI-S case, this court views that even I'f the petitioner is granted pre-arrest ba" there cannot be any apprehensI-On for the prosecutI-On that he will tamper wI'th I the evI-dence. The material placed on record discloses that the petitioner has a permanent abode at Eluru. The facts do not warrant custodial I-nterrOgatl'On Of the petitI-Oner jn the nature of the accusations. GrantI'ng antI'CI-PatOry ba" to the petitioner would not impede the ongol'ng investigation. I I 17) Upon careful perusal of the materI'al on record, __ -_ -_ `_ I |\~ I |\+\\ \+I interference with the pngojng investjgation' by the petjtl-oner, thI'S Court finds that anticI-PatOry bal'I can be flrantf±r, +A +h^ __+:1:_____,'^ I i COndjtions.- as there is no risk of can be granted to the petitioner/A.1 under certain i i) petitioner Its directed to surrender before the statllOn House offI®Cer, Eluru " Town poll-Ce Stat[-on, Eluru DistrI'Ct, Wl'thin two (2) 4 (2O19)9SCC66 +i_---- weeks lfrOm, today. On such surrender, the pet,'tioner shall be enlarged on bail on hI-S eXe!Cuting a personal bond for a sum of ¢Rs.20,000/-(Rupees ,Twenty Thousand only) with two suretI-eS I ( of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer'. ii) The petitI''Oner Shall cooperate with the investI'gatiOn and he sha" make himself avaI'lable for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any I-nducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to t`he court or to any police officer. 18) lt I-S explicitly ClarifI-ed that the observations made in this order are _ 1 Preliminary and pertain solely to the decI-SI-On On the Present Petition Without indicatl-ng a stance pn the case;s merits. TheIInvestigating Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this order. ¢ 19) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition I-S a//OWeC/. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. gr //TRUE COPY// in this Criminal Petition, _ -.---,_-=-i---,--+I.:r=-I--L---_ - SD/- K.SRIN[VAS,'i. i-RAJU ASS!S'l~ANT ,FagE9lSTRAR To71. The Station House Offlcer, E!uru H Town Pollce Station, Eluru DlstriCt 2. One CCto Sr-I Petluri Naga Raju, Advocate [OPUC] , A High Court Of A.P., 3. Two CCs toPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AmaraVati. [OUT] 4. One spare COPY. PSD \ -=* HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED..16/06/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5692 of 2025 ALLOWED