IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ,/ :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO // CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9267 OF 2025 Between : 1. Smt. Devarapalli ViJ-etha, W/o. Raghuram Reddy, Aged 39 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. Brahmanakraka Agraharam Village Jaladanki MandaI, SPSR NeI'ore District. 2. Smt Muppalla Sreedevi, W/o. late Suneel Kumar Reddy, aged 40 years, Occ Housewife, R/o East Street, Gudur Town and Mandal, Tirupathi District. ...Petitioner/Accused Mos.2 & 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, Through the Station House Officer, Kavali Rural Police Station, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, High Court of AP at Amaravathi, Guntur D1-Strict. ..,Respomdeglt 2. Dagumati Venkata Krishna Reddy, S/o. late Lakshma Reddy, agec! 58 years, Occ: Member of Legislative Assembly, R/a. Raghavencira G©lomy, MdisLir"r Village, Kava!i Manc!a!, SPSR Ne!I®re District. .I.Responcjent No.2 Petiti'on under Section 482 of BNSS/438 of Cr.P.C. is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of tILle CriiTlirlai Petitiorl, the High ,Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nosi 2 & 3 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime.Nd.118 of 2025, dated 16.07.2025 on the file of the Kavali Rural Police Station, Kavali, SPSR Ne[[ore District. IANO: 1 OF2025 Petition LInC!er Sect!-on 528 of BNSS_/482(1 ) of Cr.P.C. is filed praying that in the cI'rCumStanCeS StateCi in the memorandum. Of grounds filed in .support of t`he petition, t`he High Qfvlulrt| ma`J-' be Pleased {C gran+I in{erj'm baliI! tO the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 & 3 by directing the Respondent Kava`Ii Rural Police'Station, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, in Crime.No.118 of 2025, dated 16.07.2025, Pending CiiSPOSal Of CRLP 9267 oT-2025:ron|he I-lie Of the HIgh Court. , The petiti`on coming on for hearing, uporl perusing the petition anci the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sR! GAJJALA MALL!KARJUNA P`EDDY Acivoca{e for the Petii.ioner, and- ot- PiJBLiC PP`OSEC-iJTOP` for Responcient, and thle Court made the following ORDER: __--_-_I APl I -=OIO466672025 * [EELH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (SpeciaI` Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTIC+E Y. LAKSriMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9267/2025 [3521] Betwee n : 1.SMT DEVARAPALLI VIJETHA, W/O. RAGHURAM REDDY, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BRAHMANAKRAKA AGRAHARAM + t VILLAGE JALADANKI MANDAL, SPSF{ NELLORE DISTRICT. 2.SMT MUPPALLA SREEDEVl, W/O. LATE SUNEEL KUMAR REDDY, I AGED 40 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O EAST STREET, GUDUR I TOWN AND MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...pETIT[ONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its.. Public Prosecutor, Through the Station House Officer, Kavali Rural Police Station, Kaval®l, spsR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh , High Court of AP at Amaravath-I, C;untur District. .._ RESPONDENT/COMPLA!NANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA R-EDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant : 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court macEe the following: ORDER: The Criminal petition has been filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha` sanhit`a, 2023 (full bre`,-'ity tthe Blfi{SS') b`y' the Petitioner7'-Accused Mos.2 & 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with crime No.118 of 2025 of Kavali Rural Police Station, SPSR Nellore Dis`trict, regi-stered for the allleged offence punishable under sections 406, 408. 420, 468, 471 of the lndI'an Penal Code31860 (for bre\,Jlity fthe LP.C.J). !ASE=_e`F, __EE±E±=eSEei_i__I_jlg¥ 2. The case of the prosecution is that the_accused! Devarapaj" R.aghu Ram!- Ready, `f¥'hiie eiii,I,i9yed as !a`,.,4anager-cuil1-Liaiseri =3#ic:eE- a± -±:JrL; Ragha.\_JenC!ra !nf-rastruc{ure`s, misuse,d h^is pc,sitien to a-orrLrrii€ fiiia:7iCia!! fraiJl±. The cornlpiainant, Dagumati venkata Krishna Rec!dy, Managing part,ler of the firm, all-eges that the accused was entrusted with a.and!ing government IIiaison, _ _tax payme_nts, ~and lceperating -``tE]e-fi-rinJs SBi i€a`v---a!i BrarTCh -aC:-a:C,-u-r!t -`,,ia-i-ief -- -- .banking. !n -JIul!`JJ 2023, c!ur!ng a transac{iori in`y'o!ving the sale of a Boom PEacer to connect concrete, Hyderabad, forged II-fe tax receipts VIJere found, promptI-ng an internal audit. The audit revealed that over several years, the accused had submitted fabricated bills and dive.rtec!- Rs.78,1_3,300,J- from. company funds into his personal accounts in ,A_tis Bank and sBl, KP` Pli|ram, Bengaiuru. Thes6 misappropriated funds we.re a!!eged!y used ±o acquilre assets disproportionate to his known income, illciuding a residential property-in hJ`ai'kere, six acres ot~ iai1,I-in his native `vJi!Ilage7. and Over four_±i_I_a_g__r~a_ITLS_gLg9_i_¢ .._ ._ ~ _ I-n his Wife'S name. 'm I-_-|~ \=_-`_'_..*\-_-~so 3. Based on the complaint, the case was initially registered atJubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad under Crime No.489/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 468, and 471,120B read with 34 c)i fthe I.P.C.I Upon deterinining that the financial misappropriation occurred within Kavali Mandal, the case was transferred to Kavali Rural Police Station for investigation on point ofjuri`Sdiction. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 4. Mr.I Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Sri G.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners are totally innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings. The ,allegations as set forth in the remand report are devoid of any factual substratum: I{ is submitted that both Petitioners are homemakers, having nO nexus, either direct or indI-reCt, With the financial transactions Of the firm in question. Their alleged involvement is. predicated solely on the confession statement of Accused No.1, which is 'inadmissible 'ln law against co-accused and cannot form the basis of criminal culpability. 5. Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that upon a meticulous perusal of the complaint lodged by the c/e-racfo complain?nt, it iS manifest that the gravamen of the aliegatio ns pertains exclusively to Accused No,1, who is alleged to have diverted corporate funds into his personal accounts. The Petitioners' names do not find mention in the original FIR registered at Jubilee Hills Police Station (Cr.No.489/2023) nor in the re- registerec! FIR at Kavali Rural Police Statiom (Cr.No.118/2025), thereby +\ -I :`_SS=-- 4 evidencirlg the absence o_I-. ~an¥ I_n'ma fi?cLe___nga_te_rial implicating them. Their subsequent arraying as accused persons appears to be an afterthought, lacki-ng any TrOundationa!l basis in the colmPlaI-nt Or illVeStiLlati'V-e .record. !t iS fuliher Su'bapi'{ted #-lat the nature oT-the ciispute, even as per the prosecut.;on's own narrative, is essentially civ['I, arising out of intra-corporate financial dealings. The Petitl'oners have not evaded process and continue {o reside a{ their respective permanent addresse;. They are respected members of their I-ocaI-communitI'eS a_nd .have no ants_cec!en{s sugges-ti`v'e of cr];mir,ai procji-vit`yJ. 6| Sri Y.Magi P`eddyJ leamed CoIJ!lSe.i fo,-the Pe€itI:OnerS further su_bmit that the presen|l proceeciings are vitiated by malice and po!i{ica! i.-,~enc!et±.a. pe±]'tior:!er No.1Js spouse -w-as a known supporter of the ysRCP DOiitiCa.I DartV. Wh_ereaS I -i . the de-.facfo co.mp!a_i.n_ant is a sitting ihy-1L,A` affi`!ia{ed tvi;-'i:til-I {lEie ruling TDP part-y. The poI!jtiCa! rivalry alld falTiili-ai discord between the parties have culminated in the compiainant misutS,I-rig .his PO_Sitign___._`tHg_ foist_, atr,_i.alS_e _and _yin_die_tjv_e _crjrr]_in~al case. The remand report introduces new anal unsubstantiated allegations against the petit.ioners, which were conspI-CuOuSly absent in the orig-inal complaI'nt and FIR. !t is submitted that the invocation of sections 120B ancj 34 oT-£the i.P.C.,I has been done in a mechanI'Cal and perfunctory manne.r, wi{r_out any averment ot-conspiracy or common intention attributabie to the petition ers. The app!icatI:all Of Sec€l'on 4rJ9 of :the i.P.C.,i I-s wholly untenable, as the pet!-tioners are neither public servants, bankers! nor agents within the mea!1ing of i+ie sa_!`± prcJ`\.,i.Si'C]n. Like`y^,'isej sections 467 and 47i of ftr!e i.i.c.,7 al-e inappiicaPie, a§ there is no allegation that the petI'tI'OnerS forged or used any r'`r fry-.JP forged document, nor is there any material to suggest fabrication of records by them. 7. Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the investigation has substantially concliJded. All material witnesses (LWs.1 to ll ) have been examined, relevant documents have been seized, and Accused No.1 has already been arrested and enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.22/2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Gum-Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kavali. The filing of the charge sheet is now a mere procedural formality. No custodial interrogation of the petitioners is warranted at this stage, as they are not connected to the alleged offence and have expressed their wI-IIingness to cooperate with the investigation. It is submitted that if the cte-facfo complainant harbours any genuine grievance regarding alleged misappropriation of funds, his appropriate remedy lies before a competent civil forum. The present criminal proceedings, insofar as they pertain to the petitioners, are an abuse of process and liable to be event quasheci. 8. The Petitioners are law-abiding citizens with no prior involvement in any criminal activity. They undertake to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of this Court and {o abide by any conditions imposed. There exists no apprehension of absconding or non-cooperation with the due process of law. In view of the foregoI'ng SubmiSSiOnS, it iS Prayed tO grant Pre-arrest ball tO the Petitioners/Aecuseci Nos.2 & 3. aBe±±nfl±E_¥__I §__a__I_ _ I H E A SiS±S±a±!±±±±±±±£:±E}gSE_ _a_u_IS2j± 9. Per contra, Mr. M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned public prosecutorsubmits trla|l the Petitioners, though claiming to be homemakers, are not insulated i.rolm scrutiny mereiy by `,Jirtue Ot- their domestic status_ The invest]'gation has revealed that substantial financial transactions were routed through accounts linked to the petitioners, and theI'r Proximity tO Accu.sed No.1, both fami!ia! anc! operational, raises !egi{imate grounds for further inquiry. The confession of Accu_sed .No,.1, while riot ac!m!'ssib!_6 as substanti\vJe e\vJideilCe against co- accused, has led to the discove]ny~- of material facts +that implicate the Pet!'tioners, thereby justifying their inclusion iri the rema.nd report. Learns,± Public Prosecutor further submits that the absence of the pe+litionersJ names in the initial F!F?`s does not exonerate them, as the inves£ligatiori I:s a day--iiamic Process and SubSeCiuerit i--e-Veia±iOnS have necessitated their arraying as accused. The conte_ntion that the ciispute is. cl-viI _in nature is untenable. given the gravity of the aiiegations involving criminal breach of trust and forgery of financial -rec-ofds. Th6-P6ti-ti--6-n6+s' c-on+linuled residence at their permanent addresses does not negate the po;sibilI-ty Of tamPering With evidence Or influencing witnesses, especially considering their close association wit.h the Ac_cused No.1. 10. ?vtr,?vi.Lakshmi Nara\JJanaj learned PL]b[Iic PIrOSeCutOr StrOngi`y' refutes the allegation of political vendetta, asserting that the investigation has been c_cli-!rJjJC{ed iillLla!iia!!\JJ arlC! [J_rider jL_€ldiC,ia.!l `e`¥'erSight an`j further submits that the inves.tigatio-,i ,ill-Still Ongoing and cannot be deemed concluded merely because certain \'',itnesses have been examined. The filing `of the charge sheet is not a PrOCedL;ral formality but a critical stage that requires thorough.examination of all accl,sed, including the petitioners, Their custodial interrogation' is essential to ascertain the full extent of their involvement and to recover any remaining evidence. ll. Mr. M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor furthermore submits that the Petitioners' claim of being law-abiding citizens with no criminal antecedents does not entitle them to pre-arrest bail in a case involving serious economic offences. The magnitude of the financial irregularities and the pote`ntiafi for obstruction of justice necessitate custodial interrogation. In view of gravi{y'bf the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry!jit is requested that the instant application be dismissed in the interest ofJ-uStiee and tO Safeguard the Progress Of the investigative Process. 12. lThoughtful consideration is bestowed Ion the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I havie perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 13. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?" ANALYSIS: 14. it has to b'e observed that the complaint dated 07.08.2023, lodged by Dagumati Venkata Krishna FRec!dy, Managing Partner of Guru Raghavencira I Infrastructures, discloses a sus{ainec!` course of financial misappr®pr!ation anc! |-_,._ 8 crirrlI:rlai breach Of trust aiiegedly con]m_i_I.teq_by one Dey~?r_apalli Raghu Rami Reddy, who was employed with the firm since June 2007 and later entrusted + with managerial and liaison responsibilities. The I-irm, engaged in infras'`t[.'ructur6 and real estate operations `J\,Jith Off-ices I-n H-yderabad and Kavali, had vested the accused with access to a dedicated company bank account (SBI Kavali Branch, A/c No.32539834801) for the-purpose of handling statlJ{Ory Pat,,mentS and departmental transactions. -15. !`{ I-s further reJiea_!ed i_.r!a_i t="n o5.07.202_3, the_T~irm sold a Boom P!acer machine to C-onnect concrete, _KhanapLir, Hyc!erabac!, and .i-nterna! records reTieGteC€ Payment 9f life tax. However, !JPOri g3reSelnl{a'tiOn Of the -`¥JehiCie fe'it +.±' fitlless cert]:fi-cation oil 15.07.2023, the P`eg[-ona! Transpo.rt Authori+ly iriformed I.he purcha.ssr the_I no .s!JCh tax had been paid. Upon I:nquiry, it V-v'aS diSCO`v-ered that the accused had withdrawri the req-uisite amount, fabricated a forged biii, and fai`iea' to remit the payment, thereby diverting the funds for personal gain. Pursuant to an intemai audit, it was unearthea' that the accused had, on multiple-occasions, transferred substan{ia,I suin-s f;oin th-e company acc6~unt to his personal accounts namely Rs.5,00,000/-on 05.02.2021, Rs.6,00,000/-on 17.02.2021, and Rs.9,60,000/-on 06.05.2021 without autho_rization. Further investigation revealed that the accLISed had ac,qu'ired immov'abie property comprising a G+1 resic][entia!' bui.icjing in Ka!-kere -\;i!!age, KR IDuram, Bengalluru East, approximately six acres of land in his native village, and ol,er 4 kilograms of gold _in his wife!s namej a!! djsprJv`L`C!_i-i.;t_jrlate to h_is dec!a]red sajary' Gf Rs.40,000/- per month. The complainant submits that the accused has committed offences under sections pertaining to criminal breach of trust, forgery, and misappropriation of funds. Given the interrelation of the transactions with company accounts and the necessity for a comprehensive internal audit, delay in lodgI'ng the complaint ensued. 16. In this context, it is apposite to refer t'he J-udgment Of the HonJble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. state of Andhra Pradesh1, at para Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under: c€27. To some extent, the pet®ltioners could be said to have made ?ut a prirr]_a facie case of p;Iitical bias or mala fides but that by i{;allf i§ n_ot sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. political vendetta or bias if an is one of -.I the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipato bail. The courts should kee one thin -ln m-lnd more articularI while considerin lea of antic®l bail that when two of r-lval political part-IeS _are at War Which may ult-Imatelv lead to ations more ariicula rI criminal rosecut-ions there iS bound tO be some element of olitical bias or vendetta -Involved in the same. However, political vendetta bv itself is not suff-ICient for the Clrant Of bail. The colJrtS Should not look into the as ect of QJjlj£faJ vendetta and i nore the other materials on record constitutin rima facie case as alle the State. It is onI when the court is convinced more than =i--- rima facie that the aaljflrn_a___are frivolous and baseless that the court ma the element of QaljlicaI-vendetta into consideration for the ose of considerin lea of antici The frivolity in the .entire case that the court may look -Into should'be attr-Ibuted tO POIit-lcal bias or vendetta . 53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges: (iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respect®lvely will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respect-lvely. ln other words, olice stitement of an accused wihich is in the form of a confession is er se inadmissible ancl no reliance whatsoever can be laced on such statements either at the sta e of bail or dur®ln trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered virtue of Section inadmissible. 25 of the Evidence 30 would be of no avail 12025 SCC Online SC 1157 rovision of Section no reliance can be laced on such --I- 10 cc,nfessionaI arccu sec!.ll statement of a_n accused to im Iicate another co- 17. The Hon]ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. Std-I;€:e of Fa5qagiaFaShE!-a2, it is rleici-at paragraph No.i 1-2 as uncier: "1!?. T.he..foIIovyi.ng_ factors and parameters can be taken into consideration vy.PIE dealing with the enticipatorf bail: (i) TP? nature a.nd gravity of th; ac;cusat-Ion and the exact role of the accused rp.Pst_Pe prc].perly_comprehended before arrest is made; (i_i)_ _The ,a,ntecedepts pf `the applicant including i.he 'fact as to whether the ar:c_u_s_e_! _h:a_:_ pr_e_viopsly ,and.prgo-.ne imprisonii1€nt On COnViCtiOh b; -i--iiui -i-n r€_spect of any cognizable offence; (!i.i)`Tpe possibi.I,itv. of thp app!ican.i to flee from justice; (!\.±_I:h_e possibility of i,he accusecl's likelih'ood t& repeat' similar or ot_her offerices; (hv!,_yI!^e+:::P-:_a_c_c!:pfi?1n,S have P.een. rlade.Only with the object of inljuring or h,u.y1!Iiating. th_e applica,r3t by arresting him or her; (^v#^I^pp_€_c} ?.i_g!:?!f of anti?ipato.ry fail. particulirly in cases of large a,-IagnitUCie a.ffscPg a `v'ery large a,u,mb-er of peopI6; i.\!!}_TP= _:p¥fts =TuSt e`y'a!uate i.he a.n,'tire a'v`ai!`a-ble mia.teria! agai,nst the a,ccused 'very carpfulI¥. The court must also clearly comprehend thve exact ;oi; -if-i-is ?_c_3!s=P inn_i_hcp cas^e.. The. cp.Pps ip which i_he i3_CCu_.Sea i.S im.P!iCat.ea i^.u,ii_h i`iie help .o,i Se?i:ions 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 18-66-ii;;-i5-ur{<3:ri;I,;i-a c^o_n~s_i!?_r yi:fi_ ,pven ,greater cpre a`pd_ ca!ution beca'irse o\v'erimp',i-;ii:I=In--i; ;I;,-e c,aS.€S .iS ? matter Pf POmmOn knowledge and concern; (LV_iii)L _W_h,ile porsi.dering .the prayer for-gra.nt Of antiCiia_i_Cry bail, a ba!a.nco hlas i,p be,strucif Petwepn_tvyo factors, nainely no pre.iddice 'sir6,ir'!J-i:;'c=f=,-i:e'd-i-a tP:__i_r==_,_ fpiT_ an.S .full inv.esti.gati.e_a _alfrd tirer; shoui-a--'i; ir-e;:;ti:; -£ h,?.r`asTS,r]ent, h¥rpiliation epd unjustified detentidn of the acc;;eci; (,i,::)+::h^e _?o_u±F__tp _??.aside,lou rea??ne.bie apprefiension o; i=ripering of the vyit`ne~ss o.I.ap.prehension pf threat to the cob;plain,ant; (^x,)^f::v_pii^ty ~i_a_p:r_o_s_s=::fLi_9#n :hPu!P, elwa:y.a_. -be 90n_i_idered and if_ is only the . e!:The:r+I_0_fJg:e_a:#_ire_nl-e:si-i-hPt"shall -.h=.ve`:{6--ben cinsidered in th-i ;aiier-dig;;;i ?fL_ba_i!_~a_n_d_ iP the. eYPnt of the.re being. s_ome doubt as to the ge-;di;i;eo::-;f the.pros.?cu.fi.pn, in the normal cours; of events, the accuS6a i:-i;i{iiiSJ{; :; order of bail.'] 18. The Hon'b!e Apex Court in Gurbaksh singh sibbia v. state of Parmjafo3j a{ paragraph No.24 i{ is held as under: ".24= !t: :A.li!! Pe_ ?ppropriate at this stage to refer to.a decision of this,c;ourt ip^B.plc^h^9nd ,!9i_n_:I_ _St_at_e_ of Madhya F5radesh [(1976) 4 SCC 57i -: i 6-76-5&6 (f£rri2`.I,8_2,_:~(137`I.)_ 3_ SSR 52± on vyhich_i-fie H;a.fi C6urt has lea-;id-F==vii = fprp:u£tinp it? pr.opositio.n.s. pne of IJS, Bhagwiti, J. who spoke fd;r-hi;::Iila;a .A..C. ,f¥3:rp_ta, J, obs?rved i.Ir that C??a t`hat: (Scc pp. 576, iara -2) "::h!.-= _p_a_vI__lie:r_ I-_lf g,ra:I-:i.ing.'a!:ticipai`'oN.\,:I bai.I' i; 'Some`v^;riat extL;aOrdin,a,ry in character and it is only in exceptional cases where -It aPPea-rS iri;5t 2(201i) i SCC694 3 (1980) 2 SCC 565 i.`t`. -.I __3Sgr> i| ?_P_Sr?on,migPt Pc? falsely__implicated, or a frivolous case might be I.aLu~nLCPeq against him, c!r ['t_here ar_e reasonable grounds for froI-di-rig tP,pt a .perso.n acc!sed of an offence is not li-kely to abscond :r othervyise.pliSuSe his liberty while on baiI'' that su6h power is to be exercised." F?zaI All,_J: who delivered a separate judgment of concurrence also 9Pserved that: (SCC pp. 582-83, pare-14) "P o.rd,er for ant.i.cipatory bail is an extra6rdinary remedy available in special cases . . ." ?,pd p±roc.pede_d_ i_o_say: (scc p. 586, para 17) "As Section 438 immediately follows-sectio'n 437 which is the main P.roYisi.Pn for bail in respect of non-bailable offences, it is manifest tP_a.i_I_t.h_e ,?On^ditif?.nS .i_m_POP-ed fry Section 437(1)- are implicitly cpntained in Section 438 of the Code. Otherwise th6 result wc;uld ale tP^at^? perppp Who is accused of murder can get away under section 4_3£e_ P_y .obte!nirg. an order fc,r anticipatory bill withdiut the necessity of provirg tPpt th_ere_ were reasonable g-rounds for believing that i;e Y,as n_ct guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisofiment for life.. Such a course would render the provisions c;f section 437 n¥gatory a.pd will_ gjye a free licencd to the accu:iJ--;irs-dr;s CLP?rged With ron-b_aila_ble offences to get easy bail by app;Caching th_e .cou_rt_ _under Section 438 and bypassing secti6n -i37 of tr;e Code. This, we feel, could never have beofn the intention of the legislature. Section 438 does not contain unguided or uncanalised POvyerS.fO Pass an Order for antiCiPatOry bail, but Such an Order Peing..pf an exceptional type can only b6 passed if, apart from the -copdi_lions mentioned in section 437-, therie is a`sp6cial case made oLIt for Pass-Ing the Order. The words "for a direction under this sectipn'_I and "court may, if it thinks fit, direct" clearly show that the ?ou_rt has to be guided by a large number of considerations including those mentioned in section 437 of the Code." While stating his conclusions Fazal All, J. reiterated in conclusion No. 3 (SCC p. 589, para 25) that "Section 438 of the Code is an extrao[.f!.-Inary remedy and Should be resorted to- only in special cases"." I 19. Upon careful consideration of the submissi`ons made by learned counsel for both and the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the Petitioners have been arrayed as accused persons solely on the basis of the confession statement of Accused No.1. It is well settled that such a statement, beI'ng inadmissible against co-accused under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot form the s,ole basis for criminal culpability. The Petitioners are homemakers with no demonstrable nexus to the financial transaGti®mS ®f tine firm. im questi®m. Tineir mames d® ffi®t appear im the ®rigina! Irty`.` . Ll-`` `--; -12 FiRs, nor is there any direct allegation of conspiracy or active participation in the alleged offence. Accused No.2 is wife of Accused No.1. Accused No.3 is a widow'. De-facto compiainant ancj Accused No.1 are of same community a__n.ci reia±ives also. Materjai witnesses have been examined, relevant ciocuments were seized, and the principal accused/Accused No.1 has already been arrested and released on bail. The Petitioner_s have exp,ressed thleilr t^vJIi!!ingneSS ' to cooperate with the investigation and have not evadec! process. ln such;I circumsta_nc,es, {=!JSt_a,dial _!n.i.errCga{iCn iS neither [n[eCeSSariJ'-i-:Or jiu-StifjeC!. 20. Further, the Court is mindful of the constitutiona!' manGiate under Article 21-, \.I,,hich g'Jaran+lees the _right {O Per_SOna! jibe.rty. The Supreme a-Curt in GL!FbakSlgl SingEi Sibbia st,pro he!c! +that an{icipatorv bail is a DrOteCtiVe :me.F_S!Jre t`O S.hie!d indi\v-Jidua!S from arbi{ra[r`y'' arrest, especiaj!y when there is no creciibie ma{eriai ii-IdiCatinlg their irl-v-OiVemeni. Simiiariy, in Siciciha_ra_m Satiimgappa EVIhetre supra, the Apex Court emphasized that anticipatory bail shou-ici be granteci iiberaliy when the accuseci is not a fliaht risk anci has no ` - criminal ante6e-dent-s.--Th6- A-c6ri-se-d fu-oi b-6I6ngs to Y~sRcp party. +h-e -d6- facto comp!ainant belongs to TDP party, he is the present MLA. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that as the AcclJSed No.1 co-operated and surnport`ec! the counterpart anc! opposite political leader of the de-facto corrlpiainanE, who is former ML,A` ot- i€a\yJaili Legislative Constituenc`y',- the de- t-acto compiainant bore grudge against the Accused No.1 and roDed the ladies elf hi_s fam!i!``,,-clT-,A`ccused Not.1 i9 +la.k`e P{jiitiGa! re`v'erige. *ir5-.., -\` 13 21. ln light of the foregoing, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravI-ty and nature of the allegations levelled against the PetI-tiOnerS, this Court I-s of the view that the petitI-OnerS are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. CONCLUSION: 22. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditI'OnS: i. ln the event of their arrest, the petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required till filing of chargesheet; iii. The Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promI-Se tO the Prosecution Witnesses; SD/-K. KASIRAO //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT { AC:HAR! lEGJSTRAR _-_ri SECTION OFFICF='R To]1 The Station House Off[cer, Kavali Rural Police Station, Kava[l, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. ? one cc to sp`ll. GAJJAIA MAl_LIKARJUNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. lop.UC] 4. One spare copy KN HEIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 17/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.jtio.9267 of 2C25 ALLOWED fafS +-, ,,-, __. lir>oct.