APHC010505212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. MANDAPATI SRAVAN KUMAR, S/O. SARABAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.2 MAIN ROAD, AMMANABROLUNG PADU MANDAL, ANDHRA PRADESH,523180. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATI. 2. MUNUMA UMAMAHESWARA RAO, S/O PRAKASA RAO OCCUPATION - BUSINESS AGED 40 YEARS DADDAVARAM VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9941 OF 2025 MANDAPATI SRAVAN KUMAR, S/O. SARABAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.2-79,THURPU BAZAR MAIN ROAD, AMMANABROLUNG PADU MANDAL, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATI. MUNUMA UMAMAHESWARA RAO, S/O PRAKASA RAO BUSINESS AGED 40 YEARS DADDAVARAM VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: VI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO MANDAPATI SRAVAN KUMAR, S/O. SARABAIAH, AGED 41 79,THURPU BAZAR MAIN ROAD, AMMANABROLUNG PADU MANDAL, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ITS PUBLIC MUNUMA UMAMAHESWARA RAO, S/O PRAKASA RAO BUSINESS AGED 40 YEARS DADDAVARAM ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused for granting of bail in connection with C.C.No.324 of 2018 on the file of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner being a resident of Hyderabad has knowledge about the institution of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 by the Respondent No.2 against him. Therefore, the Petitioner could not engage an Advocate and represent the case filed by the Respondent No.2 in C.C.No.324 of 2018 at the earliest. Since the Petitioner could not make appearance, the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole had issued Non Bailable Warrant against the Petitioner. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri K. Prudhviraj, 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. 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. In the interest of justice and equity, the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for grant of bail. 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. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. 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: 8. Learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole on 29.08.2025 dismissed the application filed for grant of Bail to the Petitioner, who is Accused in a case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The Petitioner from the very beginning had not been attending the Court. Therefore, learned Trial Court had issued Non Bailable Warrant, later he was produced before the Court, he was sent to judicial custody. He needs to consult his counsel for preparation of his defence. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not residing in the address to where the summons was sent to the house, where his parents are reside. The Petitioner is residing at Hyderabad. 10. Considering the relationship in between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail subject to following two conditions: CONCLUSION: 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole. ii. The Petitioner/ Accused shall deposit 20% of the Cheque amount. iii. The learned Trial Court is given permission to order on the application filed by the defacto complainant to withdraw 20% of the cheque amount on production of sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate concerned. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 25.09.2025. Note: Issue C.C by today B/o KK