APHC010589012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11435/2025 Between: 1.YAMALA SUNIL KUMAR, S/O YAMALA SANTAIAH,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O BAYANAPALLI, CHINTHALACHERUVU,BADVEL MANDAL,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.JITHENDRA P 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.9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.251 of 2025 of Badvel Police Station, Kadapa District, registered for the 2 alleged offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 342(1) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Sri P.Jithendra, 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. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits 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.9. 4. 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 3 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. 5. 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. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. This Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 in Crl.P.No.8426 of 2025 granted pre-arrest bail to Accused No.11 but dismissed the petition against Accused No.10 in view of specific overt acts attributed against him. 8. It is urged that Petitioner/Accused No.9 acted as link between all the Accused. He funded for preparing fake seals of Tahsildar of Badvel. He is alleged to be in possession of fake seals, two in number. It is urged that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required as he played pivotal role in forging certain documents also. Of course, on confession of Accused Nos.2 to 8 revealed the role of Accused Nos.9 to 17. Police arrested Accused Nos.1 to 4 8. So far only three witnesses have been examined. Investigation is at nascent stage. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. 9. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts. 10. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioner, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’. The allegations prima facie discloses a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the petition for pre-arrest bail is rejected. 11. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.11.2025 VTS 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1