APHC010525822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10269/2025 Between: Vakati Kiran, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA 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 No.3, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.70 of 2011 of Guduru I Town Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „the I.P.C‟), and Section 5 of 2 the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for brevity, „the Act‟). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that the de facto complainant, Alluru Malini, wife of Venu, resident of Ashok Nagar, Gudur Town, a housewife and unemployed, came to know through her neighbour Subramanyam that “New Vision Foundation,” operating from VRC Centre, Nellore, was running a money circulation scheme. Believing it to be profitable, she joined the scheme as an agent by paying Rs.3,600/- and Rs.6,600/-, and received an agent kit and commission chart. She thereafter enrolled about 40 members, collecting a total sum of Rs.10,17,000/-, out of which Rs.3,24,000/- was repaid to the members, leaving a balance of Rs.6,93,000/- unpaid by the Foundation. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. Satheesh Kumar Eerla, learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully 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 her family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 3 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of 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.3 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that she may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 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 Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. As seen from the record, the case pertains to the year 2011, based on a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant on 12.10.2011. Consequently, an FIR was registered in Crime No.70 of 2011 of Gudur I Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of „the I.P.C.,‟ and Section 5 of „the Act‟. The petitioner is working as a teacher. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the Petitioner. CONCLUSION: 11. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal 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; 5 ii. The Petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a month i.e., on any Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioner shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.10.2025 KMS 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10269 of 2025 Date:08.10.2025 KMS