THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 8603 and 8460 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: These two criminal petitions, which were taken up for hearing analogously, are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same crime. 2. Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 by the Petitioners/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.316 of 2025 of Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. Criminal conspiracy with financial fraud was committed by resorting to forgery for misuse of government funds followed by criminal intimidation in connection with the YSR Jala Kala Scheme in Ponnur constituency between 2022 and 2025, was the allegation against the petitioners. The complainant, farmer from Anumarlapudi village, reported on 04.08.2025 that he and his workers were engaged in drilling 94 agricultural bore-wells under a government scheme. The contract was awarded to Annapurna Earth Movers, reportedly owned by MPP Tulimilli Srinivas through a benami, Pramila Rani, 1 the BNSS 2 the I.P.C 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.8603, 8460 of 2025 Dated 08.10.2025 and her husband Dayanand Babu. The works were supervised and funded by Srinivas, his nephew Aaradhyala Sanghameswara Rao, and Danaboina Pamulu. The complainant alleged serious discrepancies in billing, including inflated pipe gauges, and forged M-book signatures. Payments totaling over Rs.1.71 crores were allegedly routed through Pramila Rani’s account, but substantial amounts were misappropriated including transfers to MPP Srinivas, his wife Sujatha, and others. When the complainant raised concerns and demanded pending dues, he was allegedly coerced, threatened, and forced to sign documents under duress at the SBI Bank branch in Uppalapadu. He later received a cheque for Rs.10 lakhs but claimed he is still owed a significant balance. Following threats to his life, after consulting his family, he lodged a complaint at Pedakakani Police Station seeking legal action against all involved. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 4. Sri Medapati Santosh Reddy, 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 families, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to their dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are a law-abiding citizens with a permanent place of residence and are willing to comply with any condition that 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.8603, 8460 of 2025 Dated 08.10.2025 this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners undertake to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assure the Court of their continued presence as and when required. 5. 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 their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused, in the interest of justice and equity. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that Accused No.1 was already enlarged on regular bail by the learned Trial Court concerned. The complainant, Accused Nos.2 and 3 jointly executed the works. The de-facto complainant has no locus standi to make an application and it is urged to enlarge the petitioners on bail. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 6. Per contra, Mr. 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 is 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 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.8603, 8460 of 2025 Dated 08.10.2025 process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioners may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 7. 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. Considering 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. 8. Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, further argued that the petitioners had falsely recorded the depth and gaze of the bore wells in the measurement book. The work relating to 94 bore wells in the Ponnuru constituency was carried out between 2022 and 2024. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are benamis of Accused No.1. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 jointly executed the works. A total amount of Rs.74 lakhs was misappropriated by the petitioners through the production of fake bills. It is further argued that the petitioners without approaching the learned Sessions Judge, at the first instance has directly approached this Court without establishing a special case or extraordinary circumstance as mandate by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala3. 3 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.8603, 8460 of 2025 Dated 08.10.2025 9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 10. 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: 11. It is alleged that the petitioners misappropriated Rs.74 lakhs of public funds in connection with the digging of 94 bore wells in the Ponnuru constituency during the period 2022 to 2024. The amount was allegedly received by producing fake bills, based on incorrect entries in the measurement book regarding the depth and gaze of the bore wells. Thus, the prosecution's case is that the petitioners claimed payment for work in excess of what was actually carried out. A Memorandum of Understanding for carrying out the alleged works was entered into between the Panchayatraj Department and Annapurna Earth Movers. It is further alleged that the complainant, along with Accused Nos. 2 and 3, had jointly executed the works. It is also alleged that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are benamis of Accused No. 1. Additionally, it is alleged that the de-facto complainant has no locus standi to lodge a complaint with the police. 12. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the petitioners have directly approached this Court seeking pre- 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.8603, 8460 of 2025 Dated 08.10.2025 arrest bail without first exhausting the remedy of filing an application before the learned Sessions Judge concerned. Undeniably, this Court has concurrent jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail. Nevertheless, such jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and can be exercised only when the petitioners demonstrate a special case or establish extraordinary circumstances as observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C supra 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 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.8603, 8460 of 2025 Dated 08.10.2025 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.” CONCLUSION: 12. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioners have not approached the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail. Hence, Criminal Petitions are disposed of, giving liberty to the Petitioners to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned and move appropriate application for grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of this order. Until such time, the investigating officer shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners. However, the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigating officer. The investigating officer may conduct further investigation. The learned Sessions Judge concerned is directed to hear the arguments of both sides and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.10.2025 KMS 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.8603, 8460 of 2025 Dated 08.10.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8603 and 8460 of 2025 Date:08.10.2025 KMS