APHC010477662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9447/2025 Between: 1. HABEEB ALIAS SHAIK ANVAR BASHA, S/O. SHAIK NAZEER, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, KOTHA KURRU LABBI PALEM, ISKAPALLI, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner-accused No. 14for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with crime No.119 of 2024 of Muthukur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303 (2) and 319 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Case of the prosecution is that de facto complainant intended to purchase an immovable property. His brother-in-law, who is one of the accused, introduced accused No. 1 as the owner of the land. De facto complainant was lured by his brother-in-law to visit the property that could be purchased and he was advised to bring cash. Accordingly, de facto complainant carried cash of Rs.50,00,000/- along with him. When he was about to reach the land, the accused came in uniform and, styling themselves as police officers, questioned de facto complainant and persons accompanying him. The accused snatched away the cash bag from the hands of de facto complainant and beat him with hands and threatened with dire consequences. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely 3 implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning memberof his family and he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 4. Per contra, Sri NeelotphalGanji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined.It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. 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 petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. This is second bail application filed by the petitioner. The earlier bail application filed for grant of pre-arrest bail by the petitioner along with 4 accused No. 5 was dismissed by a learned single judge of this Court by order dated 01-04-2025 in Criminal Petition No. 1966 of 2025on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled by the prosecution against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except accused No. 5 and the present petitioner, the rest of the accused, 16 in number, were already arrested and enlarged on bail. The petitioner, instead of either surrendering before learned jurisdictional magistrate concerned or before the investigating officer concerned or carrying the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal), has filed this second bail application for the same relief. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that investigation is completed and charge sheet is yet to be filed. L.Ws.5 and 6 are eyewitnesses in this case. Accusation against the petitioner is well founded. CONCLUSION: 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner inasmuch as it would amount to giving a license for the person against whom serious allegations are levelled and it would also amount to giving a shield or protection to the person against whom accusation is well established as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 5 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi2. There are no merits in the criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner-accused No. 14to surrender before learned jurisdictional magistrate within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and move an appropriate application before learned jurisdictional Court concerned. On such surrender and on moving of such application, learned jurisdictional Court concerned is directed to dispose of the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as far as possible within a period of two days by giving due opportunity to both sides including learned Public Prosecutor concerned for hearing. ________________________ Date: 22.09.2025, DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J JSK 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9447 OF 2025 Date:22.09.2025 JSK