APHC010475372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9384/2025 Between: 1. KOTAMSETTY MOHAN RAO, S/O. AKKAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. VISWANADHAPURAM VILLAGE, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. KOTAMSETTY VARAMMA, W/O. KOTAMSETTY MOHAN RAO, AGED 42 YEARS,R/O. VISWANADHAPURAM VILLAGE, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings at Nelapadu, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): A VARALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9384 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.313 of 2024 of Kanigiri Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 120-B, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „the IPC‟). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the incident occurred on 30.06.2024 at Ballipalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal, and was reported on 13.11.2024 at 16.00 hours. The complainant stated that her ancestors had purchased 9.91 acres in Survey No. 678 of Ballipalli Village, out of which she presently holds 1.98 acres. The accused, Kotamsetty Mohan Rao of Viswanadhapuram and his wife Varamma, in collusion with others, allegedly fabricated a will deed dated 05.05.2006 in the name of her ancestor, Marati Ankamma, and also created a false death certificate showing her death on 20.08.2008 at CS Puram, and attempted to get 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9384 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 Varamma‟s name mutated in the revenue records. On enquiry, the complainant discovered that MaratiAnkamma @ Ramisetty Ankamma had actually died on 27.12.1999 at Kovilampadu Village, and obtained the genuine death certificate. Hence, the present FIR. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri V.Sai Kumar, the learned counsel, representing Ms. A.Varalakshmi, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, respectfully submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitionersare the sole earning members of their family, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship to dependents. The Petitionersarewilling to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 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. It is further submits that a civil suit is pending in between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9384 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 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, and such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala1, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 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/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 1Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9384 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 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 v. State of Kerala2 wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 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-wise 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. 2Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9384 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 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 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 a special circumstances nor extra-ordinary circumstance. CONCLUSION: 10. In view of the 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 an appropriate application for grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Any observations made in this order would not hinder the learned Sessions Judge concerned from applying his mind independently and passing appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law. Until such time, the 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9384 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 Investigating Officer is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.09.2025 RSI 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9384 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 89 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9384 of 2025 Date:17.09.2025 RSI