APHC010475912025 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: 9407/2025 Between: Shaik Khadarnnisa Alias Mastanamma and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners- accused Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8 on bail in crime No. 434 of 2025 of Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61 (2), 318 (2), 336 (3), 340 (2) and 338 read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Prior to 09-07-2025 in Peerlamanyam of Ongole Town, with some dubious words, accused Nos. 1 to 3 collected bank passbooks, ATM Cards and SIM Cards from de facto complainant and from some of her colony people, fraudulently opened bank accounts in their names, sent documents to accused Nos. 4 to 6 at Hyderabad and misused the accounts for their illegal activities. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioners. The petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioners. 3 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners have permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioners have cooperated with the investigation so far and assure continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that investigation is at progressive stage. Accused Nos. 5, 6 and 9 to 14 are yet to be apprehended. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioners on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non- cooperation from the petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioners, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioners do not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The petitioners, with some dubious words, deceived de facto complainant and her fellow colony dwellers and parted some amounts from them by creating certain false documents and resorted to forgery. The petitioners were arrested on 23-07-2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 64 days. Five witnesses have been examined so far. Material portion of the investigation in relation to the alleged role of the petitioners is completed. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3-accused Nos. 1 to 3 are permanent residents of Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, and petitioner Nos. 4 and 5-accused Nos. 7 and 8 are permanent residents of Nellore District. They have fixed abode. Period for custodial interrogation is also expired. Chances of the petitioners threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation would not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on bail with the following stringent conditions: 5 (i) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each a 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 learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole; (ii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till cognizance is taken by learned trial Court; (iii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (iv) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required; (v) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and 6 (vi) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 24-09-2025, JSK 7 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9407 OF 2025 DATE: 24-09-2025 JSK