APHC010540262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10508/2025 Between: Konanki Somasekhar, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P NARAHARI BABU 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 1 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.7 of 2025 of Puttaparthy Town Police Station, Puttaparthy Sri Sathya Sai District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 1 The BNSS 2 127(2), 74, 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 20232 on the allegation that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 involved in criminal breach of trust, and causing hurt or grievous hurt, respectively. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners are directly approached this Court without exhausting their remedy before the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance seeking pre-arrest bail, which procedure is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala3 and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others4. 4. Without going into the merits of the matter, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that this case has been filed under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal. C supra wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows:- “7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case. 2 The BNS 3Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 4 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 3 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre- arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/ extra- ordinary circumstances.” 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others5, supra wherein at para No. 6 as under: "6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant- complainant as a party." 6. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioners establish a special case or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioners neither established a special case nor extra- ordinary circumstance. This Court granted interim orders on an earlier 5 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 4 occasion, and the same have been extended from time to time till date. However, in view of the order passed in Mohammed Rasal.C and Jagdeo Prasad supra, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, as they have not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. 7. There are certain special instances in this case. Originally after the de- facto complainant lodged a report with the police. The police registered a case under Section 118(1) of ‘the BNS’. The investigating officer issued a notice contemplated under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/35(3) of ‘the BNSS’. After thorough investigation charge sheet was laid. In the charge sheet the police added Section 118(2) of ‘the BNS.,’ against the petitioners. The petitioners are permanent resident of Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. They have got fixed abode. The petitioners and the de-facto complainant are resident of residents of the same village. In view of the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet there may not be any apprehension that the petitioners may threatened the witnesses from making or disclosing any statements to the police. Except Section 118(2) of ‘the BNS.,’ rest of the offences are punishable below seven years. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 3. In view of the special circumstances of this case against the petitioners as indicated above, the observations made herein are confined to this case alone and shall not be treated as a precedent. 5 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 they shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall make themself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.10.2025. KMS 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10508 OF 2025 17.10.2025 KMS