APHC010320842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6639/2025 Between: 1. GUNDALA NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O. VENKATA RAMANA, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, AADHAAR NO. 3163 56394484, RESIDING IN A HOUSE BEARING D. NO. 2-112, N.P. AGRAHARAM, PARVATHIPURAM, ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY MANYAM PARVATHIPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE- PIN CODE- 535501 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Police, Bobbili Police Station, Vizianagaram District, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/ suspected Accused on Bail in the event of Arrest in Crime No. 102 of 2025 Registered by the Bobbili Police Station, Vizianagaram District by granting Anticipatory Bail Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. I V CH PRUDHVIRAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/suspect in Cr.No.102of 2025ofBobbili Town Police Station,Vizianagaram District,registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 111(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for brevity ‘the B.N.S.,’), 66-D of IT.Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 obtained admin ID for the on-line betting application Radhe exchange from Niranjan Reddy of Bangalore and developed a network of agents across several locations and developed users with the help of above agents for promoting on-line gaming and shared gaming app links through whatsapp and the 1st accused offered share and percentage to the agents for expansion of the betting network apart from the Radhe exchange and the 1st accused and the petitioner and another of Parvathipuram obtained another Admin ID for another on-line betting application National Exchange and then after above altogether planned to attract youth towards IPL betting and push them into betting to collect huge amounts of money from the youth around 200 members in Vizianagaram, Parvatipuram and Visakhapatnam District and promoting the above on-line gaming applications and spoiling their lives, basing on the confession given by 1st accused, 11 accused are apprehended by the police. 3 3. SriI.V.Ch.Prudhvi Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner,submits that the petitioner is no way concerned with the crime and he was falsely implicated in this case and urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr.Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail and submitted that the investigation is still going on and some more witnesses are to be examined. 5. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the averments in the record, there are specific allegations against the petitioner who is Accused No.15. He obtained admin ID for the on-line betting application Radhe exchange from Niranjan Reddy of Bangalore and developed a network of agents across several locations and spoiled huge by making them to participate in the betting. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.6128 of 2025 passed an order on 25.6.2025 in favour of Accused No.13observing that Section 111(2) of ‘the B.N.S.,’ may not be applicable to the petitioner and a direction was given to the Station House Officer, Bobbili Town Police Station, Vizianagaram District, to complete the investigation in Crime No.102 of 2025, without taking any coercive steps against the petitioner. That kind of direction cannot be passed in this case in favour of petitioner, as there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that he allegedly functioned as an admin of a group. 4 7. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. VishanbhaiHirabhai Makwana 1 , wherein at paragraph Nos.25 and 26 it is held as under regarding the applicability of the principle of parity: “25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17) “17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.” 26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. Byits two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [PravinbhaiHirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [KhetabhaiParbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with SidhdhrajsinhBhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [SiddhrajsinhBhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was “assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)”. Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law.” 1(2021) 6 SCC 230 5 8. In view of the specific allegations leveled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is given to the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate Courtconcerned, within 15 (fifteen) days from today, and move an application for bail and on such filing of the application for bail, the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.7.2025 RD 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6639 of 2025 Date:15.7.2025 RD