APHC010458232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9108 Between: 1. VANKAYALA SATEESH, S/O. SRI RAMA KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO.6 TIRUGUDUMETTA VILLAGE, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DITRICT. 2. MANDAPAKA VINOD KUMAR,, ABOUT 33 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO.1 KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Ama Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9108 OF 2025 VANKAYALA SATEESH, S/O. SRI RAMA KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO.6-6, RAMALAYAM STREET, TIRUGUDUMETTA VILLAGE, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DITRICT. MANDAPAKA VINOD KUMAR,, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO.1-62, MUNAGALA VILLAGE, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO VANKAYALA SATEESH, S/O. SRI RAMA KRISHNA RAO, AGED 6, RAMALAYAM STREET, TIRUGUDUMETTA VILLAGE, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, EAST S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED 62, MUNAGALA VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.212 of 2025 of Jangareddygudem Police Station, Eluru District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(4), 338, 336, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2), read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant alleged that he started M/s IFL Green Producers Company Limited on 15.06.2021, which was registered with the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi, in which Accused No.1 is one of the Directors and Petitioners/ Accused No.2 and 3 are panel members. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 developed his own company conspiring with the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and started activities against the company of the defacto complainant. The Petitioners/ Accused No.2 and 3 being panel members, in collusion with Accused No.1 without the knowledge of the defacto complainant, established his own company in February, 2024 under the name and style of as Inakula Farmers Life (IFL) Producer Company Limited instead of ‘IFL, Green Producer Company Limited, which is similar to the company of the defacto complainant and collected money from three members in the month of April, 2025 and issued receipts in the name of Inakula Farmers Life (IFL) established by the Petitioners with Accused No.1 and given report by showing their participation certificates stand in the name of IFL Green Producers Company Limited, but the logo and colour are similar to his company, though not issued by the Company of the defacto complainant. Basing on such allegations, the defacto complainant submitted a report and the same was registered by the Police. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, 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, has been committed by them. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their 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 Petitioners are law-abiding citizens 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 undertake 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 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 Petitioner/Accused No. 2 and 3, in the interest of justice and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. 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 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 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. This Court in Criminal Petition No.7733 of 2025 on 21.08.2025 refused to grant pre-arrest bail, but granted liberty to the Accused No.1 to surrender before the learned Magistrate concerned. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, Accused No.1 was remanded on 18.08.2025. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that one Ashok Dhara lodged a report against the defacto complainant by name Bommagani Balakrishna and it was registered as FIR No.39 of 2025 on 13.09.2025 of Badradri- Kothagudem District, Gundala Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the ground that the defacto complainant being a director of IFL Agree Producers Company Limited induced the complainant in FIR No.39 of 2025 to complete the target of joining the customers of the surrounding villages, but he failed to pay the salaries. One A. Durgamma, wrote a letter to the S.I of Police, Gangavaram alleging that crores of rupees collected by the defacto complainant in kind of deposit luring to pay higher rate after maturity, but failed to pay the amounts. Similarly, several persons lodged complaints against the defacto complainant that the defacto complainant himself swallowed crores of rupees. 11. The counsel for the Accused No.1 had also issued a legal notice dated 10.05.2025 on the defacto complainant to Arepalli Naresh, Shaik Abdul Rehaman, S. Srinivasa Rao and Hussain Shaik on 10.05.2025 alleging that Accused No.1 was a member of IFL Agree Producers Company Limited, he joined several persons/ farmers as members of the company; defacto complainant is the Managing Director of IFL Agree Producers Company Limited; the defacto complainant established another company in 2021 under the name and style of IFL Green Producers Company Limited working on entire team members, the Company collected Rs. 97,00,59,325/- apart from other assets by end of 2024; when Accused No.1 raised his voice against irregularities; Accused No.1 came to know that the defacto complainant established under another company under the name and style of S.S.V.V.Infra, in which wife of the defacto complainant is the Managing Director and the funds of IFL Green Producers Company Limited were illegally transferred to S.S.V.V.Infra for wrongful gain of defacto complainant; some more properties were got transferred in the name of defacto complainant. After the above mentioned legal notice dated 10.05.2025 was served on the defacto complainant with the help of the Police got registered the present case on 04.07.2025 against the Accused No.1 and the Petitioners, who are innocents. 12. Initially when Accused No.1 was produced before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate refused to accept the remand. Accused No.1 and others filed a Company Petition before the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi against the IFL Green Producers Company Limited for certain reliefs and the same is pending. 13. The Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 and 3 tendered their resignations long ago i.e on 07.02.2025. But in order to take vengeance against the Petitioners a false case was foisted against the Petitioners and other Accused and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. 14. Whereas, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioners/ Accused No.1 established M/s Inakula Farmers Life (IFL) and collected huge amounts from the public and cheated them. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor produced the C.D file and submits that the Petitioners and other Accused approached the gullible farmers induced them and collected huge amounts from the farmers. 15. As seen from the records, there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and 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 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 offences involving overt acts. Therefore, the request for grant of pre-arrest bail is not found convincing and reasonable. CONCLUSION: 16. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioners, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’. The allegations prima facie disclose a serious offence warranting thorough investigation against the Petitioners. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case does not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected. 17. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Since learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that the defacto complainant collected more than Rs. 92 crores from the gullible farmers and swallowed the amounts, it is for the Investigating Officer to look into those alleged aspects of defacto complainant deceiving the farmers and collected huge amounts; If it is noticed that the defacto complainant had also committed irregularities, malpractices and offences punishable under the Penal provisions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed even against the defacto complainant in appropriate manner in accordance with law. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 13.10.2025. KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9108 OF 2025 13.10.2025 KK