APHC010497562025 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: 9782 OF 2025 Between: 1. M NAGARAJU, S/O.M.LOKANNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.7132, GUDEKAL VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G MANI KUMAR 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.6 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 135 of 2025 of Kodumur Police Station, Kurnool District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant‟s husband and his brother bought a Plot measuring Ac. 0.05 cents in Sy.No.100 of Kodumur Village, on 11.10.1998 from Mallikarjuna Reddy, who is adopted son of Gunthakanti Venkata Reddy. It is alleged that the said plot has been in their enjoyment. Thereafter, defacto complainant‟s husband and his brother died. During recent times the defacto complainant along with her son, wife and son of her husband‟s brother, went to see their plot, they came to know that their plot got sold away. Accused No.5 in place of defacto complainant‟s husband and Accused No.6 in the place of defacto complainant‟s husband‟s brother have registered plot in the name of Accused Nos.1 and 2 on 08.06.2023. Thereafter, half extent of the said plot was sold away to one Mr. Ramesh on 15.07.2023 and who in turn sold the same to one Nallabothula Maddilety on 13.12.2023. Hence the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by him. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to his dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of his continued presence as and when required. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner has already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1, in the interest of justice and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioner may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 6. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioner, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 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: 9. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.6, on perusal of the record is that he shared sale proceeds with Accused No.5 by causing the main Accused to sell away the disputed property, which was already sold to some others. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is a civil suit pending in respect of the disputed property in between the defacto complainant and one of the Accused in O.S.No.815 of 2025 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Adoni. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Gudekal Village, Kurnool District. 10. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/ Accused No.6. CONCLUSION: 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.6 he shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a personal 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.6 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 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.6 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 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: 25.09.2025. KK