APHC010458982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9197/2025 Between: LAKSHUMPALLI GOPAL, S/O. LAKSHUMPALLI VENKATESH, AGE 42 YEARS, R/O. 1-13, DINNE PALLI, GURIGINJAKUNTA, PO GURIGINJA KUNTA, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516215. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Through Station House Officer, Chitvel PS, Annamayya District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: DHEERA KANISHKA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9197 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 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.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.58 of 2025 of Chitvel Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143 (1), 143 (2), 143 (3), 336, 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 12 of Passport Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.04.2025, at Chillavandlapalle Village, Chitvel Mandal, and through Hyderabad and Bangalore airports, the accused A1, working as a travel agent, along with A2 (now residing in Bahrain), took money from the complainant for sending her to Kuwait on a working visa. However, the accused sent her on a tourist visa via Muscat using a forged Protector of Emigrants (POE) certificate. On arrival, the Kuwait authorities found the POE certificate to be fake, stamped her passport, and deported her to India. Thereafter, the accused again demanded Rs.80,000/- to send her to Bahrain. On 25.03.2025, they arranged flight tickets, a passport, and another fake 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9197 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 POE certificate and sent her to Bahrain, where again the authorities detected the forgery, stamped her passport, and deported her to India. Thus, the accused A1 and A2 cheated the complainant. Hence, the FIR. 3. Mr.Dheera Kanishka, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police and the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are no criminal or adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. There are no call records between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant. The passport of the petitioner was not seized. It is further submitted that the petitioner 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 to 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 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9197 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 evading the process of law. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are severe allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.4; therefore, the doctrine of parity cannot be invoked in favour of the petitioner, as the allegations against the petitioner are entirely different from those levelled against Accused No.3. 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 petitioner is shown as Accused No.4. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.5739 of 2025 granted pre-arrest bail to Accused No.3. Accused No.3 is the son of Accused No.1, who runs an unlicensed travel agency. The allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.4 are entirely different and are severe. The petitioner/Accused No.4 allegedly indulged in the creation of fake POE certificates and took huge amounts from the de-facto complainant, making illegal payments twice to send her abroad with false documents. Therefore, the doctrine of parity in respect of Accused No.4 cannot be invoked simply on the ground that Accused No.3 was granted pre-arrest bail by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9197 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 arrested and later enlarged on regular bail. There are severe allegations levelled against Accused No.4 7. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that this application has been filed under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala 1 wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows:- “7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C 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. 1Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9197 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 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.” 8. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner establish a special case or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioner neither established a special case nor extra-ordinary circumstance. However, in view of the order passed in Mohammed Rasal.C supra, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as they have not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. 9. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to a person against whom severe allegations are levelled, as per the judgments of 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9197 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)3. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.09.2025 RSI 2(1980) 2 SCC 565 3(2020) 5 SCC 1 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9197 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9197 of 2025 Date:24.09.2025 RSI