APHC010460072025 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: 9137/2025 Between: Morimisetty Suresh Alias Dal Mill Suri ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: D.Devendra Naik Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: 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.62 of 2025 of Kothacheruvu Urban Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9137 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 2. The Case of the prosecution is that between 29.02.2024 and 14.03.2024, the accused, fraudulently obtained red gram stock worth Rs.2,95,00,200/- from the complainant, who had sourced it from local farmers and mills on credit. Of the total amount, the accused paid Rs.87,00,000/- (Rs.25,00,000/- via online transfer and Rs.62,00,000/- in cash) but failed to pay the balance Rs.1,13,95,200/- despite repeated requests and false assurances for over a year, causing severe financial distress to the complainant and the farmers. Based on the complaint lodged on 04.07.2025, a case was registered, and investigation is underway. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri D. Vevendra Naik, learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship to dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9137 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that without approaching the learned Sessions Judge of first instance, the Petitioner filed this Petition directly before this Court, such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C and Another v. State of Kerala and Another1. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In 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?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, the Petitioner/Accused is alleged to have transported red gram stock from the de-facto complainant and other farmers and subsequently failed to pay an amount of approximately Rs.1,13,95,200/-. 1Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9137 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the transaction between the de-facto complainant and the accused is commercial in nature. 9. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C and Another v. State of Kerala and Another2 wherein 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. 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 2Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9137 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 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.” 10. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner establishes a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioner neither established a special circumstances nor extra-ordinary circumstance. CONCLUSION: 11. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has not approached the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance, this Court is not inclined to grant to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned and move an appropriate application for grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Until such time, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to hear the arguments of both sides and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.09.2025 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9137 of 2025 Dated 24.09.2025 53 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9137 of 2025 Date:24.09.2025 KMS