\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE pr- .-PRESENT.- THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8591 OF 2025 Between : smt Kavala Surya Kumari, W/o Kavala Venkata Narasimham, Aged 42 yrs, R/at VI-lla No.29, Sunny Enclave, Peda RushI' Konda I.T., Junction Visakhapatnam city 530045 Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State ofAndhra pradesh, Through C.I.D., P.S., MangalagirI|, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Amaravathi. Respondent/complainant petI'tiOn under Section 482 of BNSS., is filed praying that in the circumstances stated I-n the grounds filed in support of the petitl'on, the High court may be pleased to grant an Anticipatory Ba" to the petitioner /2nd Accused in connection with the crime in F.I.R. No. 31/2024 DT. 05-12-2024 on the file of CID PS A.P., MANGALAGIRI by directing the s.H.O., of CID PS Mangalagiri to release the petI-tiOner /A-2 on bail in the event of her Arrest jn FIF3 No. 31/2024 by Allowing the criminal Petition. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds fI'Ied in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments oT- Sri. R SIVA SAI SWARUP, Advocate for the petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent,I Tth® Gour€ made the following ORDER: caEE= APHCO10428322025 ERE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8591'/2025 AND Between : Smt Kavala Surya Kumari The State of AP [3521] H.PETI"ONER/ACCUSED M.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: R SIVA SAI SWARUP counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bha`ratiya Nagarik Suraksha 'Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSSJ) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting df pre-arrest bail im connection with Crime No.31 -of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, registered for the alleged offence. punishable under Section 420, 409 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity [the I.P.CI), and Se;lion 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity lthe Act7). \.- __ - Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8591 of 2025 Dated 10.09.2025 . 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that one sri Marada Ramesh Naidu, Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business OffI'Ce V I Tadepalligudem West Godavari District gave a complaint before the CIC I Police Station Andhra Pradesh, MangalagI'ri in COnneCtiOn With the loans obtained in that process some of the officI'alS Of State Bank of lndial were involvecl in sanctI'Oning loan without lookl'ng or verifying as per the law. on that the CID police station Mangalagiri regI-Stered an FIR No.31/2024 dated I 05.12.2024 under Section 420, 409 of the I.P.C read with 120-B of the I.P.C and Section 13(2) of the PC Act. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri R. Siva Sai Swarub, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that I the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has' not I committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship {o his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this court may deem fit and proper for the grant of an.ticipatory bail. The Petitioner has I got fixed abode. 4. lt is further sl,lbmittecl that there is no recovery attribu{able to the Petitioner anc! custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circuprstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigatiom anci there is no likelihooci of absconding or tampering with the I - 1-i-=S E==Eae±rmL===::I 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8591 of2025 Dated 10.O9.2025 O prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to I grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: -5. Per contra, Ms.P', Akh-lla Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor I veh-emently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the I investigation is at a nascent stage and the Custodial interrogation of the - petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. l{ 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. 0 6. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and -impartial investigation. ln view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to.the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail i application be dismissed. I 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: 8. ln the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions Of the I learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for COnSideratiOn iS: "whet'her the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre"arres€ bail?" ANAL'YSIS: 9. As seen from the record, the~REgionaI Manager of the State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari D.istrict, i y®- __ - i 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8591 of2025 Dated 10.09.2025 lodged a report with the clD PolI'Ce Station, Mangalag['ri, alleging that jn the process of sanct]'oning loans to cer{ajn persons, some off['cials of the state Bank of India colluded with the loane'es without properly verjfyjng the records and tI|tle deeds. The petjtjon?r js arrayed as Accused No.2 and js the wife of Accused No.1. There is an I'nternal dI'SPute among Accused Nos.1, 6, and 7 in i connection with obtain['ng loans by mor{gagI'ng the properties of Accused Mos.6 and 7. On an earlier occas[-on, Accused Mos.6 and 7 lodged a complaint against Accused Mos.1 and 2, which was registered as an FIR at Bommaluru PoII|Ce Statl'on, Rajahmundry, and was later transferred to the CID. 10. Applicability of section 409 of f{he I.P.C.,I to the present petI'tiOner O cannot be dec]-ded at this stage, as the petit['oner may also be charged with conspiracy along wI'th bank offlcjals in defrauding the bank. Accused No.12 was the chief Manager, wrlile Accused No.13 processed the documents. Accused Nos.8 and 9 are agriculturists, and Accused Nos.10 and ll are panel I valuers of the state Bank of India. Accused Nos.1 to 7 obtaI-ned loans, of which Accused No.7 repaid and cleared hI|S loan, resulting in the closure of that loan account. However, Accused Nos.1 to 6 faI'led tO repay their loans in I the year 2021, and the same were declared as NPAs. Accused Mos.6 and 7 stood as guarantors for the mortgage of properties m`easurI-ng the properijes 0 403 Sq.yards of land. i =s*±==ir -J`` ,_ Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8591 of 2025 Dated 10.09.2025 ll. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh1,a decision .relied on by the .learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot I coexist simultaneously. 12. In N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the Hon]ble Apex Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove charges under Section e +409, 420, and 477A of {the I.P.C.,I and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of [the Act.,I on the ground that no finahcial loss was caused to the bank, .or to any customer; no conspiracy was established; the bank official -committed gross misconduct by misusing his position, by acting himself in deletion of his duties, but there was no criminal inisconduct fall under the i ambit of Section 409, 420, 477A of 'the I.P.C'. 13. lt is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sibil score report was not takeh into consideration. .14. Although the'Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are two similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner vide Crime No,35 of 2022 and Crime No.36 of 2022, the petitioner shall be presumed to be inn.ocent until the guilty is proved. The Hon]ble Apex Court in Prabhakar -Tewari-v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 at para No.7 observed that criminal similar adverse antecedents cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. I CrI.A.No.3114 of 2024 dated 23.08.2025 2 crI.A.No.5 of2010 dated 13.12.2021 3 (2020) ll SCC648 - _- `` --J` 15. -\ I 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8591 of2025 Dated 10.09.2025 The banking officials, vyhile sanctioning loans to the petitioner, any other accused, or any customer, are required to exercise utmost care l'n examining I the documents produced by the applicants before granting the loan. The PetitiOner'S account Was declared as NPA on 06.07.2021, while the report was lodged I'n 2024. The creditor bank has the rI'ght tO file an approprI'ate PetitI'On eI'ther before the Civil Court c}r the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the I amounts allegedly due from the petitioner and other accused. At the cost of repetition, it has to be observed that it is the duty of the bank, while granting or sanctioning loans, to scrupulously examine all the documents and {Irtle deeds submitted by the applI-Cants,, SO aS tO arrive at a Proper conclusion regarding whether the applicant is entitled to the property on the basis of which the loan I is being sanctioned. The petitioner is a female age`d about 42 years and -Permanent residents Of Villa No.29, Sunny Enclave, Peda RuShi Konda I.T Junction, Visakhapatmam. The petitioner has fixed abode. 16. I ConsiderI-ng the facts and Circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled the petitioner/Accused No.2, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest baI'l tO the Petitioner /Accused No.2. coNCLU§ION: .+~ 17. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the followI'ng conditions: I i. In the event of her arrest, the petitioner/Accus6d No.2 shall be enlarged on bail -subj`ect to her executin-a a boncl for a Sinm of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with two suretI-eS for / 7 Dr.YLR, J crl.p.No.8591 of 2025 Dated 10.09.2025 the like sum each tO the Satisfaction Of the arresting POliCe officials; . ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make herself available for investigation as and when requ-lred', iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecuti6n witnesses; lV. V. VI. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station - House Officer concerned Once in a Week i.e., On every Saturday between lO.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.,, t'lll filing of the Charge Sheet. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender her Passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf she claims that she does not have I passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating, Officer. //TRUE COPY// sd/-SHAIK MOHD. RAFl E£=lSTRAR ASSISTANT. SECTl F oN OFFICER T®] 1. The Station House Officer, CID Police Station, Mangalagiri. 2. One CC to Sri. R SIVA SAI SWARUP, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. EOUT] 4. One spare copy JSS _* E \ ®, HIGH' COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:10/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8591 of 2025 AL,EL®WE D