IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE iPRESENT: DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAd\^ _ ¥ / J . .4:'' . S' i \ si’ Tj;^ONOURABLE CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8673 OF 2025 r- <iv- - • Vi: Between: Kakarla Narayanareddy @ Pedda Narayana Reddy, S/o.Anji Reddy, Age about 60 years, R/o. Remidicherla Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. .... Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings at Amaravati, Through Station House Officer, Bandlamotu PS Palnadu District. j .... Respondent/Complainant of BNSS is filed, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Palnadu Dist in Petition under Section 482 his arrest by the ^rdspondent Bandlamotu PS Cr.No. 102/2025., j The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI G VENKATA REDDY Advocate for the Petitioner, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent and the Court made the following. ORDER ,J10433042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8673/2025 Between: Kakarla Narayanareddy @ Pedda Narayana Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: G.Venkata Reddy Counsel for the Respondent/complainant; 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 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 102 of 2025 of Bandlamotu Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 132, 115(2), 296(b), 308(5),, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2 Dr.YLR, J Cri.P.No.8673 of 2025 Dated 30.08.2025 The case of the prosecution is that on 03.08.2025 at about 5:00 PM at Remidicherla Village, Bollapalli Mandal, the complainant Gandham Arun Reddy, VRO of the village, was abused, threatened, and assaulted by Kakarla Narayana Reddy. Earlier, on 01.08.2025, the accused had used abusive language over the phone regarding an agriculture income certificate applied in his wife’s name, and the call was recorded. On 03.08.2025, the accused confronted the complainant, slapped him, grabbed him by the neck, threatened to kill him, and forcibly took away his mobile phone to destroy the audio evidence. The phone was returned on the next day on the intervention of elders. The complainant reported the matter to the police, alleging abuse, threats, obstruction of duty, and extortion by the accused. 2. 3. Sri G. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitionercontends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of his family and, he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the 4. f 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8673 of 2025 Dated 30.08.2025 ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner is that he allegedly used criminal force against a public servant and forcibly took the mobile phone from him. However, after the intervention of one B. Venkateswara Reddy, the petitioner returned the mobile phone to the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhananjay Alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh V. State of Bihar^ wherein at para Nos.9, 10, 11, and 12 it was held as under; away “9. It is in the aforementioned prmise the allegations that Gautam Dubey and the appellant slapped the first informant and took out Rs.1580 from his upper pocket mut be viewed. 10. No allegation was made that the money was paid by the informant having been put fear of injury or putting him in such fear by the appeilant was intentional. 11. The first informant, admittedly, has also not delivered any property valuable security to the appeilant.. 12. A distinction between theft and extortion is well known. Whereas offence of extortion is carried out by overpowering the will of the owner; in commission of an offence of theft the 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: or 7. 1 (2007) 14 see 768 2 (2014) 15 see 357 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8673 of 2025 Dated 30.08.2025 “3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that the complainants have alleged that the accused persons have shown copies of international warrants issued against the complainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent to Rs 110 crores). In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as defined in Section 383 IRC is made out. Section 383 IRC states that: "383. Extortion. Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver 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, no offence of extortion is made out and FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been registered by the police." 8. Further in Hemant Dhirajial Banker v. State of Maharashtra^ at para No. 15 and 18 it was held as under: ”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; (it) Inducing of the person so put in fear dishonestly; (HI) Delivery to any person any property or valuable security by the person put in fear and subjected to dishonest inducement If any of these Ingredients is absent the offence of extortion would not be complete, as held in the case of Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh \/s. State of Bihar and Anr. \ In an earlier case of R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay and Anr, similar view was taken by the Apex Court. ” 18. Of course, in the case of Bhagwan Gajanan Rhandat Vs. State of Maharashtra, along with connected matter, a Coordinate Bench of this court, of which one of us was a part, has, while dealing with the offence punishable under Section 387 of the IRC, , observed that the section does not say that the threatened person has delivered any property in pursuance to the threat. This observation, in our considered view, cannot be understood as laying down an authoritative proposition of law that even without any delivery of property, offence of extortion can be constituted; the reason being that the statement does not make it clear as to whether or not delivery of any property following the threat given is an essential part of the offence of Section 387. The statement is only about the threatened person delivering any property. Secondly, it has been made in ignorance of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforestated cases of Isaac Isanga Musumba, Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh and R.S. Nayak (Supra). So, it is clear now that not only putting a person under fear of any injury and dishonestly Inducing the person so put in fear to deliver the property but also actual delivery of property are a sine-qua-nonof the offence of extortion, as defined under Section 383 ^ Crl.A.No.488 of 2020 dated 27.06.2023 f 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8673 of 2025 Dated 30.08.2025 IPC. With this clarity in mind, let us now proceed to consider the allegations made against both the applicants. ” Upon a careful study of the decisions, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, and also a close examination of Section 308(5) of ‘the BNS.,’ it is evident 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. Section 383 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ corresponds to Section 308(5) of ‘the B.N.S’. In the present case, the applicability of Section 308(5) of ‘the B.N.S.,’ appears to be debatable and doubtful. 9. on 10. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegation leveled against the Petitioner/Accused, his alleged role played in this case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8673 of 2025 Dated 30.08.2025 ii. The Petitioner/Accused shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused 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. V. The Petitioner/Accused shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. SDI- K. KASiRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Station House Offtcer, Bandlamotu PS. Palnadu District. 2 OneCCto SRI. G VENKATA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. TWO CCS to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 4. One spare copy KSR f HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:30/08/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8673 of 2025 ALLOWED