APHC010494122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9757/2025 Between: 1. NARAYANA MOHANA KOUSALYA, C/O. NARAYANA VENKATA RAMAIAH, FEMALE, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. 7-365, BLOCK NO. 6, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522503. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravatj. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner-accused seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to her in crime No. 443 of 2025 of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 16-07-2025 at about 7 hours, in MSR Apartments at Undavalli Village of Tadepalli Mandal, de facto complainant noticed that her son committed suicide by hanging due to family disputes. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, 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. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of her absconding or evading the process of law. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the pre- arrest bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. 3 ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by 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 learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The petitioner, being wife of the deceased, against whom her mother-in- law lodged a complaint that her son took an extreme step of ending his life by 4 hanging himself to ceiling fan because of the attitude of his wife by maintaining illicit relations with some others. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner, without approaching learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance, directly approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail and there is no special case shown or extraordinary circumstance established. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal C and another v. State of Kerala and another1 held at para Nos. 7 to 9 as under: “7.The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 CrpC 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 SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6588 of 2025 5 10. In Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para No. 6 as under: "6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant- complainant as a party." 11. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not approached learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance and directly approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail without establishing any special case or showing extraordinary circumstance, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief. However, the petitioner is permitted to move an appropriate application before learned Sessions Judge concerned for grant of pre-arrest bail. 12. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 07-10-2025, JSK 2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 6 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9757 OF 2025 DATE: 07-10-2025 JSK