i]+.-I -- :Zgr ]N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9490 OF 2025 Betwee n : I 3521.I r' _ iv-..rfu, A Sirimalja Mal]ikarjuna Reddy, S/o. Brahma Reddy Aged about 43 years,+ Occ:Business, R/o.D.No.20-18-327, Sangadigunfa, Guntur Gty, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner/Accused No.8 AND Union of India, Rep by its Special Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of- Investigation, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. (Through Station House Officer, ACB Visakhapatnam Police Station Visakhapatnam district/Superintendent of Police, CBl, ACE Visakhapatnam) Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 482 of BNSS (old 438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the c-lrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppor't. of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory bait to the Petitioner/Accused No.8 in the event of his arrest in connection with the F.I.R No.RCO362024AOO27 of 2024, dated 03/12/2024 on the file of ACB Visakhapatnam Police Station, ViSakhapatnam District, for offence under section 420, 409 468 471 read with section 120-B IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1 ) (d), Section 13 (2) read with (13) (1 ) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (As amended in 2018). The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filecl in support thereof and upon hearing the argumehts of Sri SYED KHADER MASTAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and of SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the Court made the fo]lowjng; '' a r= Dr. YLR, J crI.P:N?.9f3P 3f_2_Oj2!5_ `. `®1 Dated 19.O9.2025 The. Court made the foliowimg: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been flled under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity {the BNSS') by the petitioner/Accused No.8 for granting of pre-arrest bal-I in connection with FIR No.RCO362024AOO2.7 of 2024 of ACB Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian penal code,1860 (for brevity {the IPC]) and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1z) (d), Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1)(a) of Prevention and Corruption Actl 1968. 2. 2. The case of the prosecution is that N. Srikanth, Deputy General Manager & Zonal Head, UCO Bank, Hyderabad, lodged a complaint dated 15.04.2024 against Smt. !nnamuri Venkata Lakshmi Kumari, Proprietor Of M/s. Vigneswara Cotton Mills, S. Radhakrishnan, then AGM, UCO Bank, Guntur, H. Phani, then Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Guntur, and others, alleging offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal misconduct. It is alleged that M/s. Vigneswara Cotton Miiis, an unregistered firm. was sanctioned a cash credit-limit of Rs.150 iakhs on 15.09.2016, which was later *--- : .f±:-.: _:.--_,_-_:.i:__-_-_-_ +:gff- Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.94so of 2025 Dated 1.9.09.2025 enhanced to P`s.500 lakhs. The loa!l was aiiegedly obtained fraudulen±ly by inflating collateral security values and pr.oducing false proJ-eCtiOnS. ., The funds were then diverted to associate firms through fictitious transadtions to avail further credit facilities and; lsubsequently misappropriated. The firm was found to be non-existent, with no stock or book debts. It is further alleged that the .then AGM and Chief Manager, in conspiracy with the borrower, sanctioned the loan in violation `of ba`nk norms with dishonest intent, thereby causing wrongful lds's `to UCO Bank-. The borrower also diverted the loan proceeds to M/s. Gayatri Cotton Mills, M/s. Kesava Cotton Traders, and M/s. Sankar Cotton Traders. Consequently, the account was classified-as NPA on o5.07.2019 and decla;ed as fraud on 08.ll.2023, resulting in a loss of Rs.534.44 lakhs to UCO Bank. Hence, the FIR. 3. Sri Syed Khader Mastan7 the learned COunSel for the Petitioner, contends that the petitioner is the innocent of the alleged offence and has -been falsely implicated by the police. lt is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his , / incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependent's. The -- petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions ±ha{ may b`e- imposed by this court. =| I light of the foregoing submissidns, learned - ©E_- 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9490 of 2025 Dclted.19.09.2025 counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of ( justice. I 4. Per confra, Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, the learned special Public Prosecutor for CBl, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting tr!at the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. lt is contended that I'f the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigatI-On and evading the process of law, and urged {o clismiss the petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SpecI'aI PubII'C Prosecutor for CB!. Perusecl the record. 6. As seen`from the recorq, the brief a"egation levelled against the i petitioner is that he fabricated certaI'n documents tO facilitate a loan from the bank. The petI'tiOner l'S a businessman. Earlier he worked as an ` _ _-------_ accountant under Chartered Accountant. The learned special public r~'*'--~--^'u`-Jln-c'-''~o`1-rr'`~~_.ri.. ~Q.. I ``t,`'.-lr_-'< W `J I rl. _.,_r``.________...,....~~__.r~+~r~_ Prosecutor submitted that after thorougJn investigation, the respondent filed a charge sheet on 17.09.2025, which is yet to be taken on fI'le. The sections of law allegedly shown against the petitioner are sections 420, 406 and 409 of lthe lPC.,I and section 13(1)(b) of the prev'ention o-f Corruption Act, +1~grHSection 409 of [the .!PC.,I I-s squarely applicable to -a-J -_-=-i----\ S* iapfap EiE=i=--`-..-- Li 5_, + i Dr. YLR, I CrI.p.No.9490of2O25 Dclted 19.09.2025 the bank officials, while the rest of the offences are punilshable upto Seven years. 7. The learned counsel for the peti{I|Oner Submits that th6 ]aarned counsel for the respondent had submitted before anoth6r `court in W.p.No.25525 of 2025, II'Sted yesterday before a learned -single Judge of this Court,. that the petitioner was eariier served a notI|Ce' under sectI'On 41(A) of lthe cr.p.c.,I (now sectI'OnS 35 and 35(3) of f{he B.N.S.S.,I .2023). The learned special publI-C Prosecutor--'also-submits that such no{I|Ce Was Served on 07.05,2025 and the petitioner appeare'd before the Investigating officer in response. 8. Be that as i{ may, since the charge sheet has be-en filed aid the alleged offences shown against the petitioner are punishable upto seven i_ years, this Court deems it fI't tO grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Ac`cused No.8. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following conditions: I i. .'ln the event of his arrest, the petitioner/Accused No.8 ' shalII be +enlarged _on bail subject to he executing¢ a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,-000/- (Rupees Twenty <_----' Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.9490 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each tO the satisfaction of the arresting police offjcia[s', ii. The petitioner/Accused No.8 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The petitioner/Accused No.8 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The petitioner/Accused No.8 shall appear beforethe 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.8 shall not leave the limits of the District without the express permission from the station House Officer concerned. vi. The petitioner/Accused No,8 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Invest-lqatina Officer. i . SD/-B.PRAS'AD RAO ASSISTAN _____ LS I,\ TRAR. //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER For // To, l=» i ;i.. i 1. The Special Judge forCBI Cases at Vijayawada 2. The Superintendent of police, cB{, ACB, Visakhapatnam 5. The Station House Officer, Station House Officer, ACE Visakhapatnam Police Station Visakhapatnam district 4. One CC to SRI. SYED KHADER MASTAN Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI. P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI, High Court ofA.P. [OPUC] 6. One spare copy Kj HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:19/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.NoI9490 of 2025 ALLOWED