APHC010503972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. EATA DEVI RAO, RESIDING AT POTNURUVILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. EATA GIRISH NEHRU, RESIDING AT POTNURU VILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at AmaravatiThrough Pendurthy Police Stationof Vishakhapatnam City Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. B.SUDHAKAR 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 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9913 OF 2025 EATA DEVI RAO, RESIDING AT POTNURUVILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. EATA GIRISH NEHRU, RESIDING AT POTNURU VILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at AmaravatiThrough Pendurthy Police Stationof Vishakhapatnam City ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO EATA DEVI RAO, RESIDING AT POTNURUVILLAGE, EATA GIRISH NEHRU, RESIDING AT POTNURU VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at AmaravatiThrough ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the 2 Petitioner/Accused No. 2 and 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 236 of 2025 of Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 419, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 21(1)(2)(3), 22, 23 of The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for brevity ‘the BUDS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a kidney patient. The Accused No.1 cheated the defacto complainant saying to provide the Junior Assistant Jobs to his wife in Collector Office, Zilla Parishad, Railways by showing previous fake appointment orders and also the Accused No.1 took him and met the Accused 2 and 3, by that time the Accused No.2 and 3 were cheated him by showing fake ID card and saying that she is a income tax officer and her husband is a cancer patient and required 20 Lakhs for medical treatment and also saying that her money of Rs.100 crores was seized by CBI and after paying of the tax it will be released and they will pay extra money to the defacto complainant. On enquiry, the defacto complainant came to know that the said Accused cheated, later they failed to provide jobs and refund the money. Hence the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri B. Sudhakar Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, have been committed by them. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their 3 family, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to their dependents family members.It is further submitted that the Petitioners are 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioners have 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. 2 and 3, in the interest of justice and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Neelotpal Ganji, 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 Petitioners are indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioners may not 4 extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 6. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioners, 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. The allegation against the Petitioners, on perusal of the record, is that they have cheated the defacto complainant by showing fake I.D card and saying that the Petitioner No.1 is Income Tax Officer and husband is a cancer patient. They required Rs. 20 lakhs for medical treatment and also that their money of Rs.100 crores was seized by the C.B.I and after paying tax that amount would be released by the C.B.I and then they would pay the extra money to the defacto complainant. Believing those words, the defacto 5 complainant paid an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the Petitioners. Later, defacto complainant came to know that the Petitioners cheated her and also several other persons. 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioners viz., Crime No.428 of 2022 of Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam; Crime No.218 of 2023 of Kothavalasa Police Station, Vizianagaram District; Crime No.162 of 2025 of MVP (L&O) Police Station, Visakhapatnam and Crime No.202 of 2025 of Bhimunipatnam Police Station. There are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. 11. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1and 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. CONCLUSION: 12. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioners, this 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 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 Petitioners, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected. 13. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.10.2025. KK 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9913 OF 2025 08.10.2025 KK