IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI A ss WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER^^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE % •w ■V.‘ iPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12259 OF 2025 Between: Pulagam Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Satyanaryana Reddy, aged 47 years, R/o. Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Amaravati. ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant him anticipatory bail by directing his enlargement on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit in the event of his arrest in the above said FIR No. 188/2025 of Kruthivennu Police Station of Krishna District; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following; 2 Dr. YLR,J CrI.RNo. 12259 of 2025 Dated 03.12.2025 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.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 188 of 2025 of Kruthivennu Police Station, Krishna District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 386 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’). Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. 3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is a direct eyewitness to the alleged threatening of the de-facto complainant by the petitioner and other accused. So far, only eight witnesses have been examined. The investigation is at progressive stage. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. As seen from the record, the de-facto complainant, by name T. Kalyan Kumar, in his report alleges that the petitioner and other accused, belonging to 4. their own community, approached him to sell land. It is alleged by the de-facto complainant that the petitioner and other accused, in conspiracy, showed Government land as the personal land of the petitioner by creating certain forged documents, induced the de-facto complainant, and took Rs.7,50,000/- as part of the sale consideration. Later, when the de-facto complainant questioned them, they refused to register the land. The petitioner and other accused threatened him with dire consequences. 3 Dr. YLR,J CrI.RNo. 12259 of 2025 Dated 03.12.2025 5. The de-facto complainant further alleges that on 02.09.2021, the petitioner and other accused forcibly took away Rs.30,000/- from him and threatened him with dire consequences. In the report lodged by the de-facto complainant, there is no plausible explanation for the delay of nearly four years in lodging the report with the police. However, in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’).,/183 of ‘the BNSS’., the de-facto complainant alleges that on 01.11.2025 some mediation took place between him and the petitioner and other accused, but it was not fructified. The factum of mediation was not mentioned in the report lodged by the de-facto complainant. Except the allegation of forcibly taking away Rs.30,000/- from the possession of the de- facto complainant, the rest of the offences, i.e.. Sections 420 and 506 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C’., are all punishable with imprisonment below seven years and compoundable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhananjay Alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar^ wherein at para Nos.9, 10, 11, and 12 it was held as under; "9. It is in the aforementioned prmise the allegations that Gautam Dubey and the appellant slapped the first informant and took out Rs. 1580 from his upper pocket mut be viewed. 10. No alleoation was made that the money was paid by the informant having been put fear of injury or putting him In such fear by the appellant was intentional. 11. The first informant, admittedly has also not delivered any property valuable security to the appellant 12. A distinction between theft and extortion is well known. Whereas offence of extortion is carried out by overpowering the will of the 6. or owne,r in (2007) 14 see 768 4 Dr.YLR,j CrI.RNo. 12259 of 2025 Dated 03.12.2025 commission of an offence of theft the offender's intention is always to take without that person's consent." In Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra^ at para No.3 it 7. was held as under: "3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the writ petition Annexure .P 7 and we find therefrom that the complainants have alleged that the Bocused persons have shown copies of international warrants .issued against the complainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent to Rs 110 crores). In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as defined In Section 383 IPC is made out Section 383 IPC states that: "383. Extortion. Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, d commits 'extortion"." Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been registered by the police." as 8. Further in Hemant Dhirajlai Banker v. State of Maharashtra^ at para No. 15 and 18 it was held as under: "15. This definition indicates following Ingredients of the offence of extortion, which must be present for constituting it. (1) Intentionally putting any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person; (ii) Inducing of the person so put in fear dishonestly, (Hi) Delivery to any person any property or valuable security by the person put in fear and subjected to dishonest inducement. If any of these ingredients is absent, the offence of extortion would not be complete, as held in the case of Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Anri. In an earlier case of R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay and Anr, similar view was taken by the Apex Court." 18. Of course, in the case of Bhagwan Gajanan Phandat \/s. State of Maharashtra, along with connected matte,r a Coordinate Bench of this court, of which one of us was a part, has, while dealing with the offence punishable ^ (2014) 15 see 357 ^ erl A.No.488 of 2020 dated 27.06.2023 5 Dr.YLR,J CrI..PNo. 12259 of 2025 Dated 03.12.2025 under Section 387 of the IRC, observed that the section does not say that the threatened person has delivered any property in pursuance to the threat. This observation, in our considered view, cannot be understood as laying down an authoritative proposition of law that even without any delivery of property, offence of extortion can be constituted, the reason being that the statement does not make it clear as to whether or not delivery of any property following the threat given is an essential part of the offence of Section 387. The statement is only about the threatened person delivering any property. Secondly, it has been made in ignorance of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforestated cases of Isaac Isanga Musumba, Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh and R.S. Nayak (Supra). So, it is clear now that not only putting a person under fear of any injury and dishonestly Inducing the person so put In fear to deliver the property but also actual delivery of property are a sine-gua-nonof the offence of extortion, as defined under Section 383 IRC. With this clarity in mind, let us now proceed to consider the allegations made against both the applicants" 9. Upon a careful study of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, and also on a close examination of Section 308(5) of 'the BNS., it is crystal clear that the offence of extortion is attracted only when the offender puts any person in fear of injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver any property to any person. 10. By following the ration laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhananjay Alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Isaac Isanga Musumba and Hemant DhiraJIal Banker supra, this Court in CrI.P.No.8673 of 2025 observed that forcibly taking away any amount or valuable property would not under the provision of extortion under Section 383 of ‘the I.P.C victim was put in fear of injury intentionally by overpowering the will of the owner of the property. The de-facto complainant has not chosen to issue any legal notice to the petitioner and other accused, calling upon them to repay the amount come unless the 11. , or 6 Dr. YLR,^ CrI.RNo. 12259 of 2025 Dated 03.12.2025 the de-facto complainant had not chosen to institute any civil proceedings for recovery of earnest money. Section 383 of 'the I.RC’., corresponds to Section 308(5) of the B.N.S'. In the present case, the applicability of Section 308(5) of 'the B.N.S.,' appears to be debatable and doubtful. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with' the following 12. 13. conditions; In the event of arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.1, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing a self-bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials. I. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned IV. 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. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. V. , 7 Dr. YLR,J CrI..PNo. 12259 of 2025 Dated 03.12.2025 vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he do not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. SD/- G.HELANAIDU DEPUTY.RE(^TRAR //true COPY/i SECTION OFFICER F To, Police Station of Krishna The Station House Officer. Kruthivennu District. 2 one CC to Sri. K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. TV.0 CCS to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 4. One spare copy 1. HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED:03/12/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.12259 of 2025 ALLOWED