APHC010470792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9328 OF 2025 Between: 1. SYED MASTHAN VALLI, S/O. SYED SALEEM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC THE THEN JUNIOR ASSISTANT, DISTRICT MINORITIES OFFICER, Y.S.R DISTRICT, CURRENTLY WORKING IN THE O/O.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PIU DIVISION, BADVEL R/O. 57/416-14-21, KAKARLA SUBBA REDDY COLONY, CHOWTAPALLI ROAD, AKKAYAPALLI, KADAPA, Y.S.R DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Station House Officer, Kadapa I Town Police Station, Y.S.R District, Andhra Pradesh., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the followingOrder : ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 176 of 2025 of Kadapa I Town Police Station, YSR District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 316(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for brevity „the BNS‟). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.08.2025 a report addressed by the District Minorities Welfare Officer, YSR District stating that there is misappropriation of the funds pertaining to Urdu Ghar Cum Shadikhanas, constructions of churches and other related projects for an amount of Rs. 2,48,67,736/- as reported by the Joint Collector as a preliminary enquiry into the financial irregularities committed by both the officers. Basing on the report, the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri PapudippuSashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by him. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to his dependent family members.It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of his continued presence as and when required. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner has already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and 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 and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Mr. NeelotpalGanji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioner may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 6. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioner, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 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: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.21239 of 2025, dated 13.08.2025 passed an order in favour of the Petitioner therein i.e Accused No.1/ Shaik Imran that the Respondent therein was directed to defer initiation of Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused No.1for a period of one year from that date. The allegation against the Petitioner herein i.e Accused No.2 is that he colluded with the Accused No.1 in misappropriation of amount of Rs. 2,48,67,736/-. The Petitioner herein worked as Junior Assistant under Accused No.1 at the relevant point of time. Accused No.1 was District Minority Welfare Officer. 10. The District Collector, YSR Kadapa District addressed a letter to the District Minority Welfare Officer, YSR Kadapa District on 24.07.2025 at that time, the Accused No.1 was not District Minority Welfare Officer, to take action against the persons, who have diverted and misappropriated the public money and to take action for recovery of amounts also. Pursuant to the said letter on 18.08.2025, the District Minority Welfare Officer addressed a letter to the S.H.O concerned requesting to register the case against the Petitioner and also Accused No.1. 11. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he being a public servant acted as abettor in dealing with the certain bank transaction by colluding with District Minority Welfare Officer/ Accused No.1. The Joint Collector, YSR Kadapa District recommended for taking disciplinary action based on his preliminary enquiry report against the Petitioner and Accused No.1. 12. Be that as it may, the Accused No.1 in his explanation dated 12.06.2025 tendered to Joint Collector, YSR Kadapa, at Page No.3 at un-numbered Paras 2, 3 and 4 he threw entire blame and burden on the Petitioner. No amounts were transferred to the account of the Petitioner from the Drawing and Disbursement Officer. There is documentary evidence also available, so that the chances of the Petitioner tampering the evidence may not arise. 13. The Petitioner is a Government Employee and he has got fixed abode. He is now working as Junior Assistant in the office of Executive Engineer, PIU Division, Badvel. So far, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the Petitioner, who worked as Junior Assistant under Accused No.1. However, the appropriate authority has initiated the disciplinary proceedings against Accused No.1 by the then District Minority Welfare Officer and he was placed under suspension, later he was reinstated and the suspension order is still in subsistence. 14. Considering the gamut and the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/ Accused No.2. CONCLUSION: 15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.2, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 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.2 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.2shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.09.2025. KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9328 OF 2025 23.09.2025 KK