APHC010426222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8564/2025 Between: 1. CHANDRA SEKHARA RAGHUVEERA KARTHEEK, S/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION GYM TRAINEE, R/O MOGALLU VILLAGE, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Station House Officer, Bhimavaram Rural Police Station, West Godavari District, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KARTHIKSIDDARTHA SALADI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner-accused No. 1 in crime No. 115 of 2025 of Bhimavaram Rural Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118 (1), 89, 318 (2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 10-07-2025 at about 1 a.m. near Taderu Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, accused No. 1 came to home late and brutally assaulted his wife-de facto complainant, punched her face, hit her with a bat and kicked her lower abdomen repeatedly. De facto complainant suffered heavy bleeding and swelling injuries. On 12-07-2025, she suffered from severe pain and heavy bleeding, due to which she got aborted. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Karthik Siddhartha Saladi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a gym trainer. He loved de facto complainant and married her. The alleged incident occurred in Hyderabad. There was a delay of three days in lodging FIR. De facto complainant used some tablets and got miscarriage. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner mercilessly beat his wife and caused miscarriage to her. The delay of three days is not fatal to the case of prosecution and that aspect may not be looked into at this juncture. The petitioner has not approached learned Sessions 4 Judge concerned at the first instance. He directly approached this Court without establishing any special or extraordinary circumstance. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the averments of FIR, de facto complainant levelled allegations against the petitioner that he beat her indiscriminately and subjected her both mental and physical cruelty. When de facto complainant questioned the attitude of the petitioner, he beat her and caused mental cruelty. The petitioner and de facto complainant are blessed with a son. When de facto complainant was carrying pregnancy, the petitioner beat her indiscriminately. Because of the alleged physical assault on de facto complainant by the petitioner, she got aborted. Since there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to him. Further, the petitioner has not approached learned Sessions Judge at the first instance. He directly approached this Court 5 without establishing any special or extraordinary circumstance for invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of granting pre-arrest bail. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal C and another v. State of Kerala and another1 held at para Nos. 7 to 9 as under: “7.The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 CrpC in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area- wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case. 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre- arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre-arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/extra-ordinary circumstances. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion to grant pre arrest bail as the petitioner had not made out any special or extra-ordinary circumstance of filing this petition before this Court without approaching learned Sessions Judge concerned. 11. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________________ Date: 17-09-2025, Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. JSK 1 SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6588 of 2025 6 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8564 OF 2025 DATE: 17-09-2025 JSK