APHC010459232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9116/2025 Between: 1.GUMMA REVATHI, W/O. LATE G. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.2/74, NADIMPALLI VILLAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.V NITESH 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.34 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.229 of 2023 of Proddatur II Town U/G Police Station, YSR Kadapa 2 District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420, 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on or before 06.11.2023, at the State Bank of India, Sivalayam Branch, Proddatur, Accused No.1, Pullagura Chandra Mohan, then serving as a gold appraiser, conspired with Accused No.2, Sivasankar Maddisetty, and 38 other individuals (A3 to A40) to defraud the bank. The accused allegedly pledged counterfeit gold-plated ornaments containing wax or other non-precious materials, misrepresenting them as genuine gold. By deceitfully securing loans against these fake pledges, the accused caused wrongful loss to the bank amounting to Rs.3,17,40,647.18/-. The offence was reported on 06.11.2023 at 7:30 PM by B.M.V.L.Narayana Rao, Assistant General Manager and Regional Manager, SBI, Regional Business Office-5, YSR Kadapa. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the Petitioner 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 her family, and her arrest would cause irreparable hardship to her dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 3 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 absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.34 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE 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 Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that she may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. 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: 4 “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.34 is that she had allegedly pledged 65.65 grams of spurious gold with State Bank of India and obtained loan for an amount of Rs.2,90,000/-. The bank officials has alleged that in collusion with bank officials and also the appraiser of the gold this alleged transaction has happened. 8. Be that as it may, the bank being a financial institution should be vigilant. The Bank Manager after appraisal of the gold, value the gold and assess it, whether it is genuine or not. The Bank Manager has also got the duty to verify it. Without doing so he cannot grant loan. 9. In the similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.6510/2025 granted pre-arrest bail to Accused No.37; another learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.7533/2024 granted pre-arrest bail to Accused Nos.18, 27 & 31. Petitioner is also standing on the similar footing. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/ Accused No.34. CONCLUSION: 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/ Accused No.34 shall be enlarged on bail subject to her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two 5 sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/ Accused No.34 shall make herself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/ Accused No.34 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/ Accused No.34 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 No.34 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner/ Accused No.34 shall surrender her passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If she claims that she does not have passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:11.09.2025. VTS