APHC010468782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9297/2025 Between: Padagala Chaitanya Krishna Yadav and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VARREY VENTAKATA NAGAVISHNU TEJA 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 BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioners/Accused, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.227 of 2025 of Bommuru Police Station, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 386 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short „the IPC‟). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the incident occurred on 08.07.2025 at Amma Nanna Old Age Home, opposite Mallina Nagar-2, near Pitlavani Cheruvu, Morampudi, Rajamahendravaram Rural. Due to certain family disputes, the complainant decided to live separately. He had sold his property at his native place and received an amount of R.18,00,000/-, out of which he spent Rs.12,00,000/- to clear debts. An amount of over Rs.3.5 lakhs was deposited with Tetela Anand Reddy Finance Company, and the remaining Rs.2.5 lakhs was kept with him. Subsequently, he joined Pagadala Prasad Old Age Home by paying Rs.20,000/- as admission charges. On 08.07.2025, due to heavy rain, the complainant's belongings got wet, and he kept an amount of approximately Rs.1,80,000/- out to dry. Upon noticing this, the accused allegedly criminally extorted the said amount from the complainant by threatening him with dire consequences. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Mr.V.V.N.V.Teja, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship to dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 3 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that without approaching the learned Sessions Judge of first instance, the Petitioners filed this Petition directly before this Court, such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala1. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 1Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 4 ANALYSIS: 8. An application has been filed under Section 482 of „the BNSS‟, seeking for granting pre-arrest bail without approaching 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 supra 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-wife 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 such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just 5 exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/ extra- ordinary circumstances.” 9. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of „the BNSS‟, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioners establish a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioners neither established special case nor extra-ordinary circumstance. CONCLUSION: 10. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the Petitioners to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned and move appropriate application for grant of pre- arrest bail. Any observations made in this Order would not hinder the learned Sessions Judge concerned to apply its mind independently and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law. The Investigating Officer is directed not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioners/ Accused for a period of three (03) weeks from today, enabling the Petitioners to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.09.2025 S D P 6 250 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9297 of 2025 Date:15.09.2025 S D P