APHC010479092025 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: 9439/2025 Between: Katragadda Ramakrishna ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. POLANKI ANAND SURYA 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.158 of 2024 of Ponnur Rural Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420 and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’) and 79(1), 83(B)(C) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9439 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 30.07.2025 at 2:00 P.M., the complainant, Sri K.V. Ramarao, Divisional Cooperative Officer, Tenali, alleged that Accused No.1 (Ex-CEO, PACS), Accused No.2 (CEO, PACS), and Accused No.3 (then In-charge Manager, GDCC Bank, Ponnur Branch) colluded to misappropriate PACS funds by issuing 33 KCC loans and 2 LT loans, and by unauthorisedly deputed staff and withdrawn salaries, causing a loss of ₹43,59,256/-. Following an enquiry report submitted to the District Collector, Guntur, proceedings were issued against the accused, and an FIR was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Polanki Anand Surya, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9439 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, 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. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 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: 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9439 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 9. As seen from the record, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is the Executive Officer of GDCC Bank. The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Tenali, addressed a letter dated 20.05.2025 alleging that the petitioner committed fraud by issuing two receipts to members worth ₹1,19,100/- but failed to record them in the cash book. An enquiry under Section 51 of ‘the Act.,’ was conducted, leading to surcharge proceedings under Section 60(1) of ‘the Act’. In the surcharge proceedings dated 18.06.2025 in S.C.No.410 of 2021-C, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies observed that the petitioner had paid the entire amount along with interest. Consequently, the civil liability relating to Item No.4 against the petitioner/D.3 was dropped. This constitutes a special circumstance for filing this petition seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail directly before this Court without approaching the leaned Sessions Judge. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that only five witnesses are examined so far. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Doppalapudi Village, Doppalapudi Mandal, Guntur District. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled the Petitioner/Accused No.2, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2. CONCLUSION: 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9439 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a 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 limits of State of Andhra Pradesh, without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall 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: 17.09.2025. KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9439 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9439 of 2025 Date:17.09.2025 KMS 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9439 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025