if-E /I + IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE LZfz :PRESENT: lf EE=-i \`\+ THE HONOURABLE DT,R JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO lrf`>`-:~ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8600 OF 2025 dractp~1 `ii:i:!*ii;*SSi+ Between : ` ` . Pochareddy Chandrasekhar Redd`y! S/o. Subbarami Reddy, aged about 65 years. Resident of PIot No.506, B-BIock, Balaji Hel-ghts, Sarasawathi Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. yd,-I ...'. Petitioner/Accused No.1 I 'AND 1. The State ofAndhra Pradesh, rep. by its public Prosei;-ritor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Paluru `Venkateswarlu Reddy, S/a. Venkateswar Reddy, Aged about 41 years, santhi Nagar, Kaffii-;` SPSR Nellore District. Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the courtls order elated 20.08.20`26-in I.A.No.2 of 2025-`im CrI.P.No.8600 of2025. L~ .... Respondenttr/prComplainanE // i,,/ Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C of BNSS is filed praying that in the cl'rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release of the petitioner on Bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.97/?025 of Kavali " Town Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. L7rf~ ORDER / APHCO10'428792025 EHE EiiiRE I I 'lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH At AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE a PRESENT - THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8600/2025 Between : Pochareddy Chandrasekhar Reddy AND l The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner/accused: S Dilip Jaya Ram [3521] ...PE"THONER/ACCUSED I "IRESPONDENT/COMPLA[NANT(S) Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): Lingala Hazarathaiah Public Prosecutor The Court macle the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSSJ) by' the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.97.of 2025 of Kavali lI Town Police Station, SPSR Neliore District, registered' for the alleged offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 472 and 120-B¢of the indian Penal Code,1860 (for brevity £the I.P.CJ). a,i-r' I `; .j ¢ i?. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: EEFELEELi Dr.YLR, J crl . p . No.`8600 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant land I accused jointly conducted a real estate business from 2012, operating through a joint account at City Union Bank, Nellore, opened-in 2015 and managed by the accused. The accused retained the cheque book, concealed transactions, and misappropriated funds, leading to their separation and ,closure of the account in 2024. [t is alleged that the accused fraudulently kept unused cheques, forged the complainant's signature, presented cheques totaling Rs.9 lakhs through his associates to have them dishonoured, and issued notices with the intent to defame, cause financial loss, and breach the complainant's trust. I I coNTENT]ONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri S. Dilip Java Ram, learned counsel for the Pet-ltioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely I'mPIicated 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 t'hat this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. , 4. lt is further submit`ted that there is no recovery at-tributable to the I Pet.itioners and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstamces of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the e'~ rr_.i.--`-- __I Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8600 of2025 Dated 15.09.2025 Prosecution evidence. Therefore, it I-S Prayed that this Cout may be pleased to grant pre-arrest baI'l tO the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS,OFTHE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. 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 I Petitioner I-s I'mPeratiVe for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the I 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. 6. Sri Lingala HasarathaI|ah, learned counsel for respondent No.2, while reiterating the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously contended that the petitioner, along with his associates, had illegally taken the cheques of the de-facto complainant even after the closure of their transaction, fraudulen{Iy retained unused cheques, forged the complainantJs sI'gnatureS, and PreSentled them through close associates, which I were subsequently dishonoured. Thereafter, the petitioner, along with the other accused, dishonestly and fraudulently filed a case under section 138 of the N.I. Act, thereby causing financial loss and defaming the de-facto complainant. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the discretionary relief of grantI-ng Pre-arrest bail and it is urged to.dismiss the petition. 7. The prosecution also apprehends that the petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the faI'r and impartial <=-``a L_ 4 'q Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8-600 of 2O25 Dated 15.09.2O25 investigation. ln view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, and urged to dismiss the petition. I 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by I the learned Counsel for'both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. ln 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?15- ANALYSIS: 9. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, as seen from the report of the de-facto complainant and supporting 'documents, is that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, P. Venkateswarlu R6ddy, 'had I previously engaged in a partnership' business involvi'ng certain financial transactions. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant removed the petitioner from the partnership firm a'nd cancelled the joint bank transactions. It is further alleged that the petitioner, bearing a grudge against the de-facto compla-lnant, conspired with bank' officials I.o defame and harass him by forging his signature. The petitioner is said to have caused a false complaint to be instituted under Section 138 of [the N.I.Act.,I through his friend, P. Vijay Sekhar Reddy, as though the de-facto comp!ainant had issued a cheque for Rs.9,00,000/-, and a legal notice was issued on 03.02.2025. The de-facto I complainant has denied any such transaction in the present complaint loc!ged against the petitioner. i.< \ tt==.- cc i-_.. ,i /, i I --A. ' --I-:-i-;--:-/ =rfu` ,/ Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8600 of2025 Dated 15.09.2025 10. The de-facto complainant has the right to contest the criminal case filed by P. Vijay Sekhar Reddy. He has also made additional allegations of intimI'datI'On, deception, and forgery against the Petitioner and Others. To safeguard his reputation, the de-facto complainant has the remedy of I contesting the complaint fI'led under.Section 138 of {the N.I.Act.,I by cross- I examining the complainant and other witnesses therein and eliciting the truth. ll. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled the Petitioner/Accused No.1 this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No,1. CONCLUSION: 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following condjtjons: i. ln the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he. executing a bond for a sum of I Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with two sureties for the like surh e.ach to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials,I ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Pe'titioner/Accused No.1 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; ¢-i-_i. lV. V. VI. ToI Dr.YLR, J CrI.P.No.8<600 of 2025 Dated 1'5.09.2025 The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station 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. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the district limits without the express perm'ission from the station House Officer concerned. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall su'rrender his passport, if any, t.o the investigating officer. lf he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the SD/-M ASSiSTAN SE lON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// `. '{ ' i- * `-- 1. The Station House Officer, Kavali lifown Police Station, SPSR Nellore / D istr'lct. `~ `, I.- 2. Paluru Venka{esWarlu Reddy, S/o. Venkateswar Reddy, Aged about 41 years, santhi NagT£i, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District. (by RPAD)L~7~ 3. One CC to SRl. S DILIP JAVIA RAM Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh.[OUT] 5. One.`spare copy ksr -_ / .```\ _ \\\ r HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED: 15/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8600 of 202`5 ALLOWED