APHC010496622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9814/2025 Between: T. BHASKAR, S/O. LATE THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O. WARD NO. 2, MARUTIA VILLAGE, ANANTHAPURAMU POST, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High court at Amaravati Through S.H.O.,Kuderu Police Station ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9814 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 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 petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.29 of 2024 of Kuderu Police Station, Ananthapuram District, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420, 386, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.02.2024 at about 06.40 P.M., near a church in Jallipalli Village, Kuderu Mandal, and reported at the Police Station on 13.03.2024 at about 07.00 P.M., the accused Nos.1 to 4 approached the complainant by making deceptive statements that they possessed gold coins and would sell them to him at a lesser price. Believing their words, the complainant came to Jallipalli Village, Kuderu Mandal, on 15.02.2024 with an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to purchase the gold coins. While exchanging the coins, the complainant noticed that the coins were fake and refrained from handing over the money to the accused. Thereupon, the accused, by threatening the complainant with deadly weapons, forcibly took Rs.11,00,000/- from him 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9814 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 and fled away. Basing on the report of the complainant, a case was registered. 3. Sri K.V.Raghu Veer, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is the innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the 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. It is further submitted that there are similar adverse antecedents against the petitioner on earlier occasions, and that he is more inclined to commit offences of this nature. However, the 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9814 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is no reference to the name of the petitioner in the report, and therefore, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, there is no reference to the name of the petitioner in the report lodged by the de-facto complainant on 13.03.2024. The alleged offence occurred on 15.02.2024, and there is a delay of more than 28 days in lodging the FIR. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the alleged role played by him in this case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner with the following conditions: 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal 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 the arresting police officials; 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9814 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 ii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The petitioner/Accused No.1 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.1 shall not leave the limits of the District without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Investigating Officer is at liberty to approach this Court seeking cancellation of bail against the petitioner in case he commits any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of this case. _______________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 25.09.2025 RSI 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9814 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9814 of 2025 Date: 25.09.2025 RSI