IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIVIARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I , -. PRESENT: |- THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO \`` _.-_ I.I, cRIIV[lNAL PET]T[ON Mos: 74`74, 7475, 7476 & 7477 OF 2025l' CRLP No. 7474 of 2025 BetweenI' ` _/ Chamatap9lli Nagaraju, S/o. Veerraju, Age 38 yrs, Occ Bank Employee, R/o. I.E D. No. 6-103, lndirammapeta, Chityala village. West Godavari District. `- ...Petitioner/Accused No.4 `-~~ AND \_ -.- The State of Andhra Prac!esh, rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Amaravati (For S.H.O. Pithapu;`ailrRuraI P. S.) Respondent/Complainant petition under section 48t2+-;f BNSS (Section 438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order of AntiG-PatOry Bail i`n his favour in anticipation of arrest by the concerned Police in relation to the i +,-_I crime No 177-of 2024 in the eve.nt of arrest on the file of Pithapuram rural police stat'rcrn, under the circumstance of the case. otherwise, the petitioner will be put to serious and irreparable loss. CRIMINAL PETITION - `L..- -I, NO: 7475 OF 2025 .Between : \,,.--- Chettipothula Harish, S/o.Satyanarayana, A/35 years. Bank Employee, Sri I- sampath sai Nilayam Road No.7, Official colony, Srinagar, Gajuwaka,L- \ r, \_. Visakhapatnau-i ...Petitioner/Accused No.7 AND .The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by public prosedcilt+6r, High Court of AP Amaravati (For S.H.O. Pithapura`hi---Rural P. S.) Ei \de.-,/, ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under sect!-on. 482 of BNSS/ Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C; Praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the CrI'minal'-Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant ant order of Anticipatory Bail in his favour in anticipation of arrest by the concerned police in relation to the crime No 177#2o24 in the event of arrest on the file of pI'thaPuram \rofal police station, under the circumstance of the case. Otherwise, the petI'tiOner Wl-ll be put to serious and irreparable loss.A- ~ CRIMINAL PETITION L, - NO: 7476 OF 2025: Between : --i, E>arl-tosh MandaI, S/o. SuhiI Manda-I, Age 45 yrs, Occ Bank Employee, R/o. D.i \../ No. 1-84/2, ACC Andhra -Colony, Gadde\ra-gadi, Kyathanapally / Mancherial, Mandaifilarri, RamakrishnapLlra, AdI|Iabad, Telangana. L-~' .I.Petjtjoner/Accused No|6; i.~. AND The State of Andhra Pradesh,I rep,., by AddI. Public Prosedtrfozr, High Court of `_,/ AP Amaravati For S.H.O. PI'thaPuram Rural P. S. ... Responclent/Complainant petition under section 482 of BNSS/ Under Section 438 of Cr.P,C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order of Anticipatory Bail in -his favour -ln anticipation Of arrest by the `iconcerned police in relation to the crime No 177 of 2024 in event of arrest on ±l :the file of Pithapuram rural police station, under the Circumstance Of the Case. r`otherwise, the petitioner iviII be put to serious and irreparable loss. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7477 OF 2025 Between: Guntuku Rajesh, S/o. Guntuku-Bai, Age 34 years, Occ Bank Employee, R/o. Flat No. 210, Venu -Dharani, Anand Nagar, Pothina MaIIayapalem',: visakhapatnam District petitione'r/Accused No.5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh,` rep:, by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Amaravati (For S.H.O. Pithapuram Rural P. S.) ...Respondent/Complainant petition under section J482l of BNSS/ Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed i'n support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an 6rder of Anticipatory Bail in-I his favour in anticipation of arrest by the Concerned police in relation to the crime No 177 of 2024 in the on the file of pithapuram rural police station, under the circumstance of the case. otherwise, the petitioner will be put to serious and irreparable loss. The Petit.ions comind' c;n for hearing, upon perusing the petitions and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI T V S PRAB`ri~AKARA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners, in a'll the petitions and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent in all the petitions, the court made the following THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION ORDER-- Mos..7474 7476 & 7477 of 2025 The CrI.P.Nos.7474, 7475, 7476 & 7477 of 2025 are heard and disposed of by way of this common order as the petitioners in these petitions are arrayed as accused Nos.4, 7, 6 and 5 respectively in one FIR I-.e., Cr.No.177/2025 of Pithapuram -Rural PoII'Ce Station. 2. Provenan?e of the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, with common criminal intention, have committed offences of misappropriation of publl'c funds, forgery, cheating, ant.I violation of service norms prI'Or tO 24.09.2024 at or about 17.loo hours at B.Kothuru Village, Pithapuram MandaI. The matter was brought to officI'al notice and reported on the same date and at the same time. It is the allegation of the complainant, V.Sri Ramani, Project Director, District Rural 'Development Agency (DRDA), KakI-nada, that Accused No.1, D.Padmakumari, village Organisation Assistant, B.Koth|uru Village, I'n conspiracy with Accused No.2, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Pithapuram, orchestrated a fraudulent operation by creating 168 duplicate Self Help Groups (SHGs) between 2018 and 2024, 141 in Bank of Baroda and 27 in DCCB, Pithapuram, by preparing forged documentation using credentials of individuals residing outside the mandated territorial jurisdiction, thereby contravening SHG operational guidelines. 3. It is further alleged that on the strength of such fabricated records, the accused persons secured loan dI|SburSements amounting to Rs.10.21 Crores in the name of the fictitious sHGs, thereby intentionally caused unlawful gain to themselves and consequent financial loss to the banking institutions. Moreover, Accused No.3, MR Meenakshi, serving as Community Coordinator, p.Thimmapuram CIuster, is alleged to have enrolled herself as a member of Kanakadurga SHG, contrary to the Human Resource norms and service condit'lons prescribed by the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), thereby constituting a breach of ethical serviee conduct and misuse of official position. 3. Mr. T.V.S.Prabhakar.Rao, learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 in Crime No.177 of 2024 registered by Pithapuram Rural Police Station, based solely on the statement of a co-accused, namely the VIIIaae Oraanization Assistant (A1 ). without any independent corroborative material. lt is a settled proposition Of law that the unverified confession of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis to rosecu{e another individual. DartiCularlv in the absence of substantive incriminatin evidence. All the accused had served as managers at the Bank of Baroda, Pithapuram branch during different tenures, each holding the post at varying periods relevant to the investigation and have held responsible positions at multiple branches across different states. During their tenure, they discharged their duties professionally, maintaining an unblemished record and earning commendations from their superiors. Their conduct has not attracted any adverse notice at any point during their service, thereby indicating their integrity and commitment. /ut 4. The Peti{I-OnerS Were not the sole authorI-ty responsible for SanCtiOning loans under the SHG scheme. As per bank procedure, loans above Rs.5 Lakhs are sanctioned by the Regional Manager, and every loan undergoes layered scrutiny involving Credit Managers, Field Officers, and additional verification from the DRDA. The sanctionI'ng Process iS governed by institutional checks that prevent any single officer. from exercising unfettered discretion, 5. He further argues that the SHG loans I'n question Were Primarily takeovers from other banks such as District Cooperative central Bank and Godavari Grameena Bank. Group loan applications were supported by resolutI|OnS, Aadhaar documentatI-On, and Signatures of 10 members along with the group animator. Once sanctioned, amounts were credited into group accounts jointly operated by the group president and secretary. The Petitioners have no operational access {o such accounts and could not have personally diverted or misused funds. An internal departmental enquiry was conducted by senior officials of Bank of Baroda in respect of the alleged irregularities. Upon scrutiny of transactions and roles of concerned staff, the petitioners were found to have acted within prescribed norms. No ma/a I,-de intent or financial irregularity was attributed to them. A report on this effect was duly submitted to both the police authorities and the DRDA. 6. The principal accused (A1), responsible for coordinating between sHGs and the bank, was found to have fabricated fake groups and exploited Procedural gaps for personal gain. In a bid to deflect responsibility, Accused No.1 named the Petl-tioners in her confessI-On, Without Offering any documentary •~\ -\ proof. It was also discovered during investigation that Accused No.1 had cominitted similar fraudulent acts at Indian Bank in 2017, yet no disciplinary action was taken by DRDA, which continued her appointment. 7. He further argued that other individuals, including Accused No.3, are found to have colluded` with.Accused No.1 to get loans sanctioned for family members, misusing their official positions. Accused No.3 has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in CrI.P.No.6002/2025, despite' her deeper involvement, and the Petitioners, whose role is merely peripheral, deserves equal consideration. Of the 15 SHG loans under scrutiny, 9 have been closed and the remaining accounts reflect recoveri6s exceeding 50%. These figures rebut the allegation of systemic fraud and affirm that the bank's practices, including those supervised by the. Petitioners, have largely resulted .in functioning and recoverable assets. 8. The investigation has p'rogressed substantially, and all material witnesses have been examined. No overt acts have been attributed to the Petitioners and there is no evidence of personal enrichment, criminal conspiracy, or misappropriation of funds. Petitioners' implications appear speculative and founded on presumptions unsupported by material facts. 9. The Petitioners are of a respected professional and the sole breadwinners for their dependent family comprising aged parents, spouse, and minor children. Any coercive action at this stage would .result in grave and irreparable hardship for innocent dependents. Denial of protection under law would amount to miscarriage of justice considering the facts available. The petitioners reI-terate their wilII-ngneSS tO cooperate fully with the I-nVeStigation and abide by any condition I-mPOSed by thI-S Hon'ble Court. Their continued employment ensures their avaI-Iability and participation in the inquiry, and their antecedents reflect their credibility and responsible character. 10. Learned Counsel for the Pe{itI'OnerS further submI'tS that in view of the above submissions, and the petI'tiOnerSJ innocence, procedural integrity, and lack of direct involvement, the benefI't Of Protection from arrest pending I'nVeStigatiOn may be granted by an order of anticipatory baI'I. ll. Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that Crime No.177 of 2024 was registered pursuant to a complaint from a senior functionary of the Distrl-ct Rural Development Agency (DRDA), KakI-nada, disclosing pr,-ma fac,-e material indicating large-scale financial fraud in re!a{ion to the constitution and operation of self-Help Groups (SHGs). Upon I-nVeStI-gatiOn, it emerged that 168 SHGs,141 associated with Bank of Baroda and 27 with DCCB, Pithapuram were formed with falsified Aadhaar credentials, fabricated resolutions, and without territorial eligibility, thereby enabling unlawful sanction of loans aggregating Rs.10.21 Crores. These groups were non-existent on the ground and functioned as paper entitI-eS. 12. He further argued that the'village organisation Assistant/Accused No.1 Its alleged {o have actively facilitated the fabrication of documentation and manipulated institutI-Onal Procedures for SanCtiOning loan proposals. However, the fraudulent scheme was enabled and sustaI'ned through the gross negligence or tacit collusion of Lotanch-level bank officials. Accused Nos.4 to 7, iIE€ who held managerial positions in Bank of Baroda at different points, are alleged to have sanct-loned loans without due verificat-Ion, failed to detect anomalies in documentation, and permitted' procedural violations, thereby attracting culpability under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, and 471 read with Section 34 of fthe I.P.C.I 13. lt'is further contended that departmental inquir|les, if any, are administrative in nature and cannot override the evidentiary value of statements recorded under {the Cr.P.C.,I digital records seized during 'lnvestigation, and corroborative material pointing to willful default or complicity. Given the gravity of offences, quantum of defalcation, and the erosion of public trust in institutional lending systems, it is submitted that custodial interrogation is vital for unearthing the financial trail, identifying additional co-accused, and securing further material evidence. 14. Learned Assistant Publ-lc Prosecutor further argued that considering the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail may obstruct the investigatory process, impair retrieval of diverted funds, and defeat the ends of justice and it+is ev`entually urged that such pleas be declined, and liberty of the investigating agency be preserved. 15. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 16. `Nowthe point for consideration is: "Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?" 1 </ 7 while considerin 17. ln this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the HonJble Apex court in pl Krishna Mohan Reddy v. state of Andhra pradesh1, at para Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under: "^2_I:_ :_e_sp_me e,xtep.I,. th.e .petitioners could be said to have made out a P!m~a__fSPie_ _:|3fP o,f POlifiCel bias pr prala tides but tirit -b; it:i; i-s ;ofu=uffr:ILe:i t3_ _g_r_a_fltna_Pfi.Gip,atOry. b.?il ov.e_rlooking the other i-ri;i--fi:i; 'h;=tu;r`;:;;:; r_?.cL:r_d._ 5±!!!jpaI. v?a.deft? or b_ias if arfv is on±-aiiiiiiirirtii;;: bail: The courts s_hould kee s of rival olitical are at lead to ations b_e__some element of olitical vendetta b articularI 'olitical bias iitself is not criminal war which rosecutions ultimateI iB_ bound tO Qrl!endetta involved in the same. sufficient for T_he courts s_hould not i_Pst look into the as rant of However. t!£±Tg!±P?r a?,alerials on. record ednst_itutinq a±e-ii:i -ifS€b ees±_of rJOIitical vendetta and ignore t!9f±3Igte. lt is only when the court-is cohvir;ced iro;erin the aIIe ations are element of olitical frivolous a_nd baseless vendetta into tune_p_lea of anticiDatOry ba4 The that the c_onside ration court ma forthe rth_a facie that into the of considerin frivol-lty in the entire case I99k into Should be attributed to political bias or vendetti. that the court may 5?.` u n_From the ab9ve exposition Of law, the following emerges: (+i:)_ ¥~h_3rS _slu^c! _P?li?e` s^tStemP_nt_ Of an accused iS ofOnfeSS-loon-=l Statement, i_h_e_r£i_g_o_u:r_?f_ ,s_3?lion(s) ,25. and 26 respeef_ively will apply with aI-I it-;-v-i6-i-i;.'`h cco+^n!£s_s_i,o_!a!sAtat_em^ernt Of an?PCySed W.ill_only be adinissible if it i-s n8{ i;; by S_e_c_t!p_a_(,s)` ^2^4 ^o! 25. r_e_spec.tiVe!y and is i; tune with the ;;ij;:i-o;;:i Sect,ipn(s) 26,. 28 and _29 of the Evidence Act respectively. I cnoFnofn;infeesE;::v_hcff_ic;adi£gi:iSfL:CSg:eff;i!_e:iI:#_shSdi f eR io licate another co-accused. 18. The HonJble Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. state (NCT of DelhI-)2, at Para No.48 it is held as under: "48. TIbgJL9W Comprission of India, in its 41st Report Of 1969, noted that the necessit rantin antici bail arises mainI due to influential them b erSOnS atte m Iicate their rivals in i_alse cases or dis detained in The Report further noted that ___ _ - -_'_--) w?r#r±e±e¥o:##en£nosdati:Eggskr#eS#£a=tfno£oonraarb£;gei§IIne£rdftudf£aer;IS±ntt±hfaue:n:£:±t;£#fene£fh:#d:irriesht:itf££±F:sbsofu3nrfbaa#nh£acdfnf±osafdun§crfh apart from false cases, 12025 SCC Online SC 1157 2(2020)5SCC 1 •-__--- cases, and that this power vests in the__High Courts and Courts of Session oQPJy....,I 19. The Hon]ble Apex Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat3, at para Nos.25, 25.1, 25.2, 25.3, 25.4, 25.5, 25.9, 25.10 it is held as under: 25. The principles which can be culled out, forthe purposes of the instant case, can be stated as under: 25.1. The complaint filed against the accused needs to be thorouahlv examined, including the aspect whether the compla®Inant ha_S f_iled a f_alse__or frivolous complaint on earlier occasion. The court should also examine the fact whether there is any family dispute between the accused and the complainant, and the complainant must be clearly told that if the complaint is found to be false or frivolous, then strict action will be taken against him in accordance with law. lf the connivance between the complainant and the investigating officer is established, then action be taken against the investigating officer in accordance with law. 25.2. The gravity of charge and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended. Before arrest, the arresting officer must record the valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In exceptional cases, the reasons could be recorded immediately afterthe arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the court. 25.3. lt is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case, ln cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined the investigation _angd__h_e is fully_ cooperating with___th_e i_nves_i_ig_at!pq aqencv and is not likely to abscond® in that event. custodial interroclatiOn Should be avoided. A clreat iCInOminV, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consecluenCeS not Only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make anv distinction between arrest at a Ore-conviction Stage Or DOSt- conviction sta 25.4. There is no justification for reading into Section 438 CrPC the limitations mentioned in Section 437 CrPC. The plenitude of Section 438 must be given its full play. There is no recluirement that the accused must make out a "special case"__for ttI_e eX_f>rtrS_e__of__i_h_e_ D_ewer tO grant antiCiDatO__nl|JaEL This virtually, reduces the salutary power conferred bv Section 438 CrPC to a dead letter. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints and conditions on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may deem fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail. 25.5. The proper course of action on an application for anticipatory bail ought to be that after evaluating the averments and accusations available on the record if the court is inclined to grant anticipatory ba®Il then an interim bail be 3(2016)1 SCC152 gnrS^n^t:!.2f! n|Pt_ic? _be ,issued t9..the Pu_blic Prosecutor. After hearing the public p^r^o_sf:_c_ut|oLr: fP.£ _pour ma.y eith.pr reje_ct__the anticipatoiv i=ii -=ipi'i;a{i;;'':r c+3n:fTT~t_h_e_i_ni_ti_3!. Prqe,r ofngranting ir_ail. The court ivould cerfai-ni-; -of;:-ni'itl:i tp _ilppose cc!n.ditiors for ire grarft of anticipatory bail. Th-; -i-i-bi;Jc ~i;rok:;:Ji:r o_r._tP_e_ ?p,rppla,irant wo.y!d be et liberty to mbve tile same court fo; i;;;iliii:'n ?:amo^drfyfng^th:::?I_dltionT:_ Pf Pn:.ic.iba!ory Pail.. at any time if liberf;-i;a-n-i:i-i; i_h=_,.?pr,rt ,is mis,!sed.. .Ifip anlicibatorf bail gra;ted i; iii--6oadi'-ihuou"l'd ordinarily be continued till the trial of thJ case. 2^5r-3:f!p^i,nf_lceLX!b_le_ gL!jq3Ii,nes pr .:i.ra-ItjaCket fPrmula can be provided for grant ol!_lrefusal of t,h.e an.ticipato_ry bail beiause all circumstances anJ :ii;;{ioa;s-';f f,untu^r^enc^a^nnn^st_!p..€Ll,=P_rI_I_yi_:yalis?d fpr the. grant or refusal-6t-i;tiii;iei;iv'iii. I ^nhc^::also_n^a_n_c_e_ y_i:!fi_ I_:_g islati.ve i p.ten!iop , th6 grent or refu-sai of i;tircriitit:;i:-i I shh_oTI^d p.€cespar.ily qepend on the facts andrcircumstances dr-i;ii;-i;i:. 2.5:ll,P_._ye shall a!s_o^ .rp.pr.od_u_c_e para 112 of the judgirerit-ih-§i-iidriraram s^a_tl.i.n|g3PPf_c_?se !!20! 1.) 1.SC9 694 -. t2011 J 1 SC6 tofriJ 5-14]--,-;i;ir;i;;{ir= P_purl dell.n.eatp.d the_ f_pllo_wing factors ilnd P£rameterS trial hi:eb -i; -ii'i=kJn iptp_c.onsidpration While dealing with anticibatory bail: (?)abugREIIaO:rfcffo:sn:ifehft:eogxnefcac:ct;ov;ecst;tofonthfa:hcc:o:uetri: :n ((cfi#sos:bsIII#tllltOf tohfetahe lgCcacnutsteOdf§e?I£re£#O:§tI?oe re eat slmllar Or 9flng (Le.)._I,P_elf?_:hip _a??uSatiorS have b.Pen .Tade Pnly With the Object of injuring or h.yTiliating the applicant by arresting h-Im Or he;; (Pal_m_p9?_i _of_graft of anticiPatOry bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of peoirle; (g_) The co,ur!s m_Pst evaluate the pntire available material against the accused very carpf.ully. The court must also clearly comprehend trite exact role of i-h-e ?_c?use,d^in .i.he c9Se. T.hp_gas_eS in Which the accused iS implicated with the he.I.p of Sections 34 ar,d 149 of the Penal -Code, 1860 the court sho;Id 6-i;-;-si-iir with,.even_ greater cere and caution, because over implication in the-cai6-:i;-a ngatter of common knowledge and concern; (,h) vyhile, ?opsideripg th_e prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to b£3:~str_u_c_ft £9?:vypen fyo ,f.actors, peTely, n_o p[e!ud;ce srfould 'be caus;i i;fi;i, fLa.i:_SIP_d|:_fu_ll_ irYest.iga,i.i.Pn,. ?n.d i.Pete _sPduIJ be prevention of -riatr=::ri;i;i, h,!m±!iation and unjustified detention of the accus€d; (,i.).:+T_h_9_cP_uft_Spa,uld c.onsigp.r re?soppble app_rehension of tampering of the vy.i`tn_eps p_r apprehens-ion Of threat tO the COinblainant; ti!),_F:i_v.3!it_yl J.n_ _pr.osecutio,p ?h?UIP.always_be considered and it is only the e_l5eT_e:rt_?f_,g.Pn,yinenesS th.af. shall.heve to be considered in the matte; dig;;;i ?I_ _b?_il__a_nd ip. the.eypnt of there being s_ome doubt as to the genuinenis:-if the.pros_pcu.!ipn, in the normal course of events, the accusedis entiiI-6-i {i ih order of bail." 20. This Court on 26.06.2025 I-n Crl.P.No.6002 of 2025 granted pre-arrest bail to Accused No.3, who was facing similar allegations. As per the record available in this case, ['t has to be pointed out that the Assistant General E= I I 10 Manager and the Regional Head of Bank of Baroda on 24.09.2024 i.e., on the same date of reg'lstration of the FIR addressed a letter tO the District Collector and chairman DRDA, Kakinada, informed that there Was nO ma/a r,'de intention observed as far as the bank staff was concerned, even though there were a few procedural lapses observed while financing these groups. It is further informed that an internal investigation has ben carried out in this regard'by the higher authorities of Bank of Baroda and issued explanatory letters tO all I.he Staff -members worked during the aforesaid period (2018 to 2023) and the said matter was in the process of disciplinary proceedings of the bank and a suitable administrative action would be initiated on the e±±!pg~staff members as per the bankJs stipulated guidelines. - 21. lt was further informed by the Assistant General Manager and Regional Head to the District Collector and Chairman, DRDA, Kakinada that the regional office, Rajamahendravaram has filed FIR with CBCID pertaining to 36 SHG fraud accounts, and other remaining 101`,accounts, and they we're filing single FIR with CBCID before 30.09.2024. ' 22. -Surprisingly, as seen from the record, the District Collectorand Chairman -,vJ-=~- -- DRDA, Kakinada pursuant to the letter addressed by the Assistant General Manager and Regional Head of Bank of Baroda nei'ther communicated nor given due instructions either to the Superintendent of Police or the Inspector of police pithapuram Rural Police Station. Indeed, the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda Pithapuram also addressed a letter on 09.10.2024 to the Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural that there was no l'apses which can be attributed to iE the Branch Managers of Bank of Baroda Pithapuram. The present complaint was not maintainable against the bank or its officers. ln this regard, it has to be POinted Out that the inertia on the part of the DistrI-Ct Collect and Chairman of the DRDA, KakI'naqa end the Inspector of police, Pithapuram Rural Police r5r*-i-` *1-I-I I `^`.``_. ~~..`..|rc.` Station leaves much {o be desI-red. -_ _ -_--` -,--_--.--,-,-`. ---~--.._-'_..-`-A.-I ,_ . ~`-_ `-` 23. Ironically, this letter was also ignored either by the Inspector of poII'Ce, Pithapuram Rural and the sub Inspector of Police, PI'thaPuram Rural Police Station who received the letter dated o9.10.2024. The Inspector of police, Pithapuram Rural Police Station in a mechanical, casual and callus way shown the Petitioners as Accused Nos.4 to 7. lnactI'On On the Part Of the Collector and Chairman of DRDA, Kakinada pursuant to the letter addressed by the Assistant General Manager and Regional Head ,of Bank of Baroda, Kakinada dated 24.09.2024 cannot be lightly ignored, similarly, the Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural Police Station. The Superintendent of police, Kakinada who is the superior officer of the district, who has to oversee the investigation shall also be found fault in not properly giving instructions to the investigating officer. 24. This Court, upon perusal of the material placed on record, found no specific allegation of personal gain or overt act attributable to the accused, nor any indication of intent to cause wrongful loss to the institution. The allegations were primarily found on the statement of a co-accused, which lacked independent corroboration or evidentiary support. The prosecution failed to demonstrate any pressing need for custodial interroga{]'on, and there was no er_ir`rd 12 material to suggest non-cooperation or likelihood of tampering with evidence. The accused remained gainfully employed and available for 'lnvestigation. 25. This Court observed that the sanction of loans had occurred through layered institutional mechanisms, and no pr,-ma faC,'e deviation from Procedure or breach of duty was established against the accused individually. 26, Considering the absence of criminal antecedents, the ongoing recovery from several accounts, and the advanced stage of investigation, the Court is of the considered view 'that the apprehension of arrest was genuine and that custodial detention was unwarranted. Accordingly, in view of the settled principle that bail is the rule and ja-ll the exception, and to maintain a balance in between the two factors namely no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation and prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the petitioners, this court inclines to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners with the following stringent conditions. ln view of the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against..the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 7, and their alleged .exact role played in this case, t'his Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 7. 27. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of their arrest, the petitioners/Accused Nos.4 'to 7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty F.ive Thousand only), / 13 IV. V. To, PSR with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfactI-On Of the arrestI'ng POljCe Offl-CialS. The pe{I-tjOnerS/Accused Nos.4 to 7 shall make themselves available for inves{iga{ion as and when required and fully cooperate With the Investigating officer. The petI'tiOnerS/Accused Nos.4 to 7 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecutl-on witnesses. The petl-tjoners/Accused Nos.4 to 7 shall not leave the II-mitS of the country without the express permissI-On from the Station House Officer concerned. The petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 7 shall surrender their Passports, if any, to the inves{igatl'ng officer. lfthey claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating officer. //TRUE COPY// SD/~-M.PRABHAKARA RAO A S Ss [ES:I,:#RoEFGF I[ ScTERRA R *< .¢er`-_ . The Station House Off-jCer, Pithapuram Rural Police Station, Kakjnada I.+-.I.\ District. `1-oJ,*~++ - 2. Two CCs to the Pubi!-c ProS6~cru+tor, High Court of AP Amaravati (OUT) --.. : .I:I 3. One CC to Sri T.V,S. Prabh~a-pk-ara Rao, Advocate [opuc] 4. Onesparecopy . S_,>.-.I HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATE: 30-07-2025 BAIL ORDER CRIMINAL PETITION Mos: 7474, 7475, 7476 & 7477 OF 2O25 ALLOWED `-.`.`- .`. -;i' ih E* £<JidP I;`