IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 1 7: Mf % > I % I V-. ' '•h- \ A' & A. Hik A :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7179 OF 2025 Between: Madduluri Subbaiah @ Subash Yadav, S/o. Sudhakar Rao, aged about 30 years, R/o. Madduluri Vari Street, Near Krishna Mandhiram Pothireddipalem Village, Kovvuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Petitioner/Accused No. A1 AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi. ...Respondent 2. Elapaka Shanti Priya, W/o. Shiva Prasad, aged about 40 years, R/o. Chandrasekharpuram Highway Road, Pothireddy Palem, Kovur Mandal SPSR Nellore District. j (Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the Court’s order dated 20.08.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.7179 of 2025). Respondent/implead respondent No.2 Petition under Section 482 of BNSS., is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.AI on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No. 145/2025 on the file of Kovvuru P.S dated 07.05.2025 under Sections 308(5), 79, 324(4), 292 r/w 3(5) of BNS. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. C SUBODH, Advocate for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent No. 1 The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010347482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7179/2025 Between: MADDULURI SUBBAIAH ALIAS SUBASH YADAV, S/0. SUDHAKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/0. MADDULURIVARI STREET, NEAR KRISHNA MANDHIRAM POTHIREDDIPALEM VILLAGE, KOVVURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 2.ELAPAKA SHANTI PRIYA, W/0. SHIVA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/0. CHANDRASEKHARPURAM HIGHWAY ROAD, POTHIREDDY PALEM, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. RESPONDENT N0.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT’S ORDER DATED 20.08.2025 IN I.A.N0.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.N0.7179 0F 2025. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S): 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 Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.AI on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.145/2025 on the file of Kovvuru P.S dated 07.05.2025 under Sections 308(5), 79, 324(4), 292 r/w 3(5) of BNS and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the 2 Dr.YLR.J CRL.P.No.7179/2025 Dated: 11.09.2025 High Court may be pleased to implead the victim i.e., Elapaka Shanti Priya/complainant into. Cr.No.145 of 2025 on the file of Kovvur police Station as respondent No.2 in the above Criminal Petition No.7179/2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: CSUBODH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 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.145 of 2025 of Kovvur Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 308(5), 79, 324(4), 292 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that, on 07.05.2025 at about 19:00 hours, at a cafe near NH-67 in Kovur Mandal, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly aggrieved over a loan matter, unlawfully trespassed into the premises, while under the influence of alcohol verbally abused the complainant in obscene language, caused damage by breaking bottles, issued criminal threats placing her in fear of death, and extorted ?5,000 frofn the cash counter. On her alarm, nearby residents intervened, whereupon the Accused fled. The 3 Dr.YLR.J CRL,P.No.7179/2025 Dated: 11.09.2025 incident was subsequently reported, and a First Information Report registered. was CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 3. 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu,learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 5. 4 Dr.YLR.J CRL.P.No.7179/2025 Dated: 11.09.2025 6. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 8. ANALYSIS: 9. As seen from the averments of the First Information Report lodged by the de-facto complainant, she alleged that the Petitioner/Accuse d No.1 developed grudge against the husband of the de-facto complainant who brought loan in Backward Community (for short ‘the BC’) Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted certain documents wherein the Petitioner being the State President of Youth Wing of ‘the BC’ Corporation gave complaint to the authorities that there occurred certain irregularities in regard to sanctioning of self-employment loans in ‘the BC’ Corporation, he tendered representations to the authorities concerned. The de-facto complainant further alleged that the Petitioner/Acc used No.1 along with two others threatened her with dire co-^sequences and took 10. 11. mm 5 Dr.YLR,J CRL.P.No.7179/2025 Dated: 11.09.2025 away Rs.5,000/- from the cash counter forcibly. The Station House Officer of Kovvur Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 145 of 2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 308(5), 79, 324(4), 292 read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’ on 07.05.2025 at 10 p.m., the alleged offences occurred at about 7 p.m. This Court in Criminal Petition No.8673 of 2025 referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to Section 308(5) of ‘the BNSV Section 386 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’) held that the offence of extortion is attracted only when the offender puts any person in fear of injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver any property to any person. Ex facie, the applicability of Section 308(5) of ‘the BNS’ is doubtful. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court also in Dhananjay Alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar\ at para Nos.9, 10, 11 and 12 held as under; "9. It is in the aforementioned prmise the allegations that Gautam Dubey and theappellant slapped the first informant and took out Rs. 1580 from his upper pocket mustbe viewed. 10. No allegation was made that the money was paid by the informant having been putfear of injury or putting him in such fear by the appellant was intentional. 11. The first informant, admittedly, has also not delivered any property or valuablesecurity to the appellant. 12. A distinction between theft and extortion is well known. Whereas offence of extortionis carried out by overpowering the will of the owner, in commission of an offence of theftthe offender's intention is always to take without that person's consent." In Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra^ at Para No.3 it was held as under: 12. 13. 14. ‘(2007) 14 see 768 ^(2014) 15 see 357 6 Dr.YLR,J CRLP.No.7179/2025 Dated; 11.09.2025 “3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the writ petition asAnnexure P-7 and we find therefrom that the complainants have alleged that the Bocused persons have shown copies of international warrants issued against thecomplainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry of Justiceand Constitutional Affairs and the accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars(equivalent to Rs 110 crores). In the complaint, there - no mention whatsoever thatpursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to theaccused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence ofextortion as defined in Section 383IPC is made out. Section 383 IPC states that: 383. Extortion. Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to thatperson, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear todeliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, d commits 'extortion". Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to the threat, nooffence of extortion is made out and FIR for the offence under Section 384 could nothave been registered by the police." Further in Hemant Dhirajlal Banker v. State of Maharashtra^ at para Nos.15 and 18 it was held as under: IS 15. This definition indicates following ingredients of the offence of extortion, which must be present for constituting it. (i) Intentionally putting any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person; (ii) Inducing of the person so put in fear dishonestly, (Hi) Delivery to any person any property or valuable security by the person put in fearand subjected to dishonest inducement. If any of these ingredients is absent, the offence of extortion would not becomplete, as held in the case of Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh \/s. State ofBihar and Anr.1. In an earlier case of R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay and Anr, similar viewwas taken by the Apex Court. 18. Of course, in the case of Bhagwan Gajanan Phandat Vs. State of Maharashtra,along with connected matter, a Coordinate Bench of this court, of which one of us was apart, has, while dealing with the offence punishable under Section 387 of the IPC,observed that the section does not say that the threatened person has delivered anyproperty in pursuance to the threat. This observation, in our considered view, cannot beunderstood as laying down an authoritative proposition of law that even without anydelivery of property, offence of extortion can be constituted, the reason being that thestatement does not make it clear as to whether or not delivery of any property followingthe threat given is an essential part of the offence of Section 387. The statement is onlyabout the threatened person delivering any property. Secondly, it has been made inignorance of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforestated cases of Isaac Isanga Musumba, Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh and 15. ^Crl.A.No.488 of 2020 dated 27.06.2023 7 Dr.YLR.J CRLP.No.7179/2025 Dated: 11.09.2025 R.S. Nayak (Supra). So, it is clear now that not only putting a person under fear of any injury and dishonestlyinducing the person so put in fear to deliver the property but also actual delivery ofproperty are a sine-qua-nonof the offence of extortion, as defined under Section 383IPC. With this clarity in mind, let us now proceed to consider the allegations madeagainst both the applicants." Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the 16. allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/ Accused No.1. CONCLUSION: In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following 17. conditions: In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be I. enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty FiveThousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not cause any threat inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station IV. House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. 8 Dr.YLR.J CRL.P.No.7179/2025 Dated: 11.09.2025 The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The Petitioner/Accused No. 1 shall surrender his V. VI. 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. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ISTRAR assistant R //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SECT! To, The Station House Officer, Kovvur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Elapaka Shanti Priya, W/o. Shiva Prasad, aged about 40 years, R/o. Chandrasekharpuram Highway Road, Pothireddy Palem, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. (BY RPAD) 3. One CC to Sri. C SUBODH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. [OUT] 5. One spare copy 1 JSS HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED: 11/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7179 of 2025 ALLOWED