1 APHC010482642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9504/2025 Between: Sake Adinarayana, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SHAIK MEERAVALI 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 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.198 of 2025 of Gooty Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 194 of ‘the BNSS’. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION 2. The prosecution case is that, based on a complaint dated 31.08.2025 at 6:00 p.m., the de-facto complainant reported that his younger daughter 2 Lavanya, employed in HP Company, Bengaluru, had been suffering from fits for the past two years. On 29.08.2025 at 11:30 a.m., Lavanya informed her parents that she was going to Ananthapuramu Hospital for treatment, and later at 9:00 p.m., she again called, stating that she would stay at her friend’s house in Ananthapuramu due to the late hour. On 30.08.2025, her parents tried to contact her but received no response. At 3:36 p.m., the complainant received a call from the Duty Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Kurnool, and one Abhilash, informing him that Lavanya had died while undergoing treatment. On enquiry, the complainant learnt that two unknown persons had brought her to the hospital, admitted her, gave their phone numbers, and left. As the exact cause of death was not known, the complainant suspected foul play. Based on this, the Station House Officer registered Crime No.198 of 2025 for the alleged offence under Section 194 of ‘the BNSS’. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Shaik Meeravali, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship to dependents. The Petitioner is 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 Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and 3 circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 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 Petitioner filed this Petition directly before this Court, such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C and Another v. State of Kerala and Another . 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. 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 Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused is that he took the deceased, who was eight months pregnant, to CMN Hospital, Anantapuramu, for termination of her pregnancy. The petitioner and Accused No.1 are friends. Accused No.1 and the deceased were earlier in a 4 love relationship, and subsequently, she conceived. Accused No.3, the owner of CMN Hospital, Anantapuramu, allegedly performed the abortion, in the course of which the deceased died while undergoing treatment. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that CMN Hospital, Anantapuramu, has been seized by the District Medical and Health Officer, Anantapuramu. 9. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C and Another v. State of Kerala and Another 1 wherein 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.” 1 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 5 10. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner establishes a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioner neither established a special circumstances nor extra-ordinary circumstance. CONCLUSION: 11. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner has not approached the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary relief to grant to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned and move an appropriate application for grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of one (01) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Until such time, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner but he may proceed with further investigation, and the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to hear the arguments of both sides and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within a reasonable time. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025 KMS 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9504 of 2025 Date:26.09.2025 KMS