1 APHC010531822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10348/2025 Between: Danguri Mallikarjuna Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 1 seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.217 of 2025 of GiddalurPolice Station, Prakasam District, was registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2herein for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 351(3), 351(4) and 79of the BharatiyaNyay Sanhita, 20232. 1the BNSS 2the BNS 2 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the Petitioner. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. The alleged offences are punishable below seven years and the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 3 were not followed by the investigating officer and the Court concerned. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation. It is urged to allow the petition. 5. Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that only six witnesses have been examined so far and that the investigation is still at a nascent stage. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this juncture, there is every likelihood of his threatening the witnesses, 3 (2014)8 SCC 273 3 tampering with the evidence, or hampering the ongoing investigation abusing his position as stenographer in the learned Court. 6. The Assistant Public Prosecutor further apprehends that there is potential threat to the witnesses as the petitioner might cause harm to the life and limb of the witnesses through the aid of Naxalites as the area where the offence is committed is prone to Naxalites. The prime allegation against the petitioner is that he wrote/typed an intimidating letter/against jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate of I Class that the learned judicial officer would be killed through Naxalites. In fact, P.V. Anil Simha, in whose name the threatening letter was written and sent, stated abysmal ignorance about that intimidating letter and anguished that his name was used to put him in embarrassment and troubles and make him a scapegoat. 7. In regard to compliance of the law laid down in Arnesh Kumarsupra, the investigating officer, at the time of forwarding petitioner/accused No.2 to the learned Magistrate for judicial custody, submitted in detail the complexity of the petitioner involved in the offence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate accepted the remand report and sent the petitioner to the judicial custody. 8. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is that a letter containing derogatory and intimidating remarks against Judicial Officer was received by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur. In the course of investigation, Accused No.1, who was working as an Office Subordinate, was arrested. While in judicial custody, Accused No.1 wrote a letter narrating the entire facts and circumstances of the case and revealed 4 the prime role played by the present petitioner in the instant case, alleging that it was the petitioner who had instigated him to send such a letter and that the said derogatory letter was actually prepared by the petitioner.Undoubtedly, most of the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. However, the petitioner cannot claim bail as a matter of routine, since the investigating officer had followed the mandate of Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biharor Section 35(3) of ‘the BNS’. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, when the investigation is still incomplete, there is a likelihood that he may either influence the witness or intimidate the witnesses and tamper the evidence and electronic record. Even the learned Magistrate has made similar observations in the order dismissing bail application. It is further alleged that the petitioner forged a letter wherein he gone to the extent of threatening to kill the serving Judicial Officer of the station where the petitioner is working with the assistance of Naxalites. 9. Further, the prosecution contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender who shows no respect towards Judicial Officers or the law. He is alleged to have deceived and exploited several individuals for monetary gain. The investigation has also revealed that a substantial amount of money was transferred between Accused Nos.1 and 2. It is further alleged that Accused No.2 lured Accused No.1 by promising to secure favourable transfer orders by receiving substantial amount towards bribe. 10. Additionally, there are several cases pending against the petitioner involving financial misconduct, despite his position as a Bench Stenographerin 5 the judicial system. It is also stated that he successfully evaded execution of Non-Bailable Warrants for over three years, even while employed in the same district. If he is enlarged on bail during the pendency of investigation, there is every likelihood that he would misuse his position.Hence, the request of petitioner at this juncture is not found convincing and reasonable. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner/ Accused No.2 at this stage. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, theCriminal Petition is dismissed for the present. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.10.2025. KMS 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10348 OF 2025 15.10.2025 KMS