APHC010277412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5729/2025 Between: 1. BHARGAVARAM DALAVAI, S/O.D. KRISHNA MOHANA RAO AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 12-8-49, VADDURI VARI STREET, KOTHAPETA GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR- 522001. 2. CHALLA MOHAN, S/O.KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O D.NO.26-47-344 NALLAPADU ROAD, NALLAKUNTA 2ND LINE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR- 522004. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NALLAPADU P.S., GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. 2. GUNDREDDY NAGENDRA BABU, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. LAKSHMINAGAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTIRCT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 01.08.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.5729 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): BALA KRISHNA T Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5729 of 2025 Dated 16.10.2025 1. P VIJAYA KUMARI 2. 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 4, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.531 of 2025 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 140 (2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2025 at about 21.30 hours, the complainant reported that he had come to the Mirchi Yard, Chilakaluripet Road, Guntur, where he was engaged in the Mirchi business. On 07.05.2025 at about 10.30 hours, while the complainant was at the Mirchi Yard for some work, accused Nos.1 to 4 came to him, kidnapped him from there, and detained him at Skandagiri Complex, NH-16 Road, Etukuru, Guntur. It is further alleged that the accused kept the complainant confined in their office for two days and later released him due to a dispute relating to chilli bags. Hence, the FIR. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.531 of 2025 was registered. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5729 of 2025 Dated 16.10.2025 CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri T.balakrishna, learned counsel for the Petitioners respectfully submit that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of the family, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship to dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 4 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that without approaching the learned Sessions Judge of first instance, the Petitioners filed this Petition directly before this Court, such procedure is contrary to the order of the 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5729 of 2025 Dated 16.10.2025 Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala1 and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others2. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2: 6. On the other hand, Smt.P.Vijaya Kumari, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, while reiterating the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the accusation is well-founded against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 4, and it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels 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 Counsels for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have wrongfully confined respondent No.2 for about two days in the premises of petitioner No.1. Later, they left him free. Of course there is a delay of five days in lodging the report by the de-facto complainant with the police. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that this 1Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5729 of 2025 Dated 16.10.2025 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. 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.” 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others3, 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 3 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5729 of 2025 Dated 16.10.2025 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." 11. 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 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. CONCLUSION: 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 4 to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned and move appropriate application for grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Until such time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners; however, the petitioners shall cooperate 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5729 of 2025 Dated 16.10.2025 with the investigating officer, and the investigating officer may proceed with the further investigation. 13. Any observations made in this order shall not hinder the learned Sessions Judge concerned from independently applying his mind and passing appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law, after giving due and sufficient opportunity to both sides. 14. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.10.2025 RSI 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5729 of 2025 Dated 16.10.2025 13 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5729 of 2025 Date:16.10.2025 RSI