APHC010441732025 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: 8818/2025 Between: Morimisetty Pandu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D.DEVENDRA NAIK Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. 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 No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.54 of 2025 of Kothacheruvu Urban Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8818 of 2025 Dated 30.08.2025 Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNS'). 2. The prosecution states that prior to 28.06.2025 at Kothacheruvu village and Mandal, the accused, Dalmill Suri, Proprietor of Sri Venkateswara Dall Mill, cheated the complainant, a trader dealing in wholesale sugar and other goods. On 02.01.2025, the accused offered to supply quality sugar below market price. On 06.01.2025, thẻ complainant visited the mill, verified the sugar quality, and paid an advance of ₹46,000 via PhonePe. Subsequently, the complainant agreed to purchase 30 tonnes of sugar for Rs.9,00,000/- (including GST) and transferred the full amount via NEFT on 07.01.2025 (Transaction ID: IPL-INDIA:120025823573). The accused arranged a lorry (AP02TB4489) in the complainant's presence for transport but failed to deliver the goods. Later, the accused falsely claimed the payment wasn't credited and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- more, which the complainant paid. Despite receiving a total of Rs. 10,46,000/-, the accused failed to supply the sugar and kept postponing delivery under false pretenses, thereby committing fraud. 3. Sri Devendra Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8818 of 2025 Dated 30.08.2025 implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the 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. 4. 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 ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, 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/accused No.2, as per the statement of L.W.1 recorded under Section 164 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' is that his brother Accused No. 1 offered the de-facto complainant to arrange good quality of Sugar and taken an amount of Rs. 10,46,000/- on different occasions. Later, the petitioner/accused No.2 neither arranged the Sugar as premised nor 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8818 of 2025 Dated 30.08.2025 returned back the amount. Of course, the name of the petitioner/accused No.2 is not there in the FIR. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are 54 similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner, for which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 26 cases have been settled in Nellore District of Andhra Pradesh in Lok Adalat and one case in Delhi. 7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in the judicial custody in Crime No.42 of 2025 of Kothacheruvu Police Station of Sri Sathya Sai District. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that, so far, no petition is filed for grant of PT warrant by the investigating officer. Since there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner, there are no merits for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Hence, there are no merits in the Criminal Petition and it is liable to be dismissed. In these circumstances, the counsel for the petitioner is permitted to file an application seeking for enlarging the petitioner on bail in the present crime i.e., Crime No.54 of 2025 of Kothacheruvu Urban Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and the learned Magistrate shall treat the petitioner as if in the custody of Crime No.54 of 2025. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8818 of 2025 Dated 30.08.2025 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file appropriate application for release on bail before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall treat the petitioner in the custody in Crime No.54 of 2025 of Kothacheruvu Urban Police Station, and make endeavor to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor concerned, and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in two (02) days. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.08.2025 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8818 of 2025 Dated 30.08.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8818 of 2025 Date:30.08.2025 KMS