1 APHC010507102025 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: 9963/2025 Between: Sri Chitakayala Nataraju ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with O.R. No.251 of 2024-25 of the Forest Range Officer, Vempalli, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 9 read with Section 2(16) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, punishable under Section 51(1) and (2) of the said Act, Sections 39(3)(a) and 39(3)(c), Sections 42 and 44(a)(v) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Sections 303(1) and 2 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (theft of forest produce), Section 20(1)(C)(ii) of the Forest Act (unauthorized trespass into reserved forest), Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (relating to killing or maiming of animals, a cognizable offence), and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959, which prescribes that possession, carrying, or acquisition of prohibited arms or ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than seven years but which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is that the Petitioner and the other Accused allegedly indulged in hunting of wildlife animal i.e., Chowsingha (Tetrcerus Quandricornis) Schedule-I, Part-A, SI.No.3 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and it is an offence liable under Section 9 read with Section 2(16) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, punishable under Section 51(1) and (2) of the said Act, Sections 39(3)(a) and 39(3)(c), Sections 42 and 44(a)(v) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Sections 303(1) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (theft of forest produce), Section 20(1)(C)(ii) of the Forest Act (unauthorized trespass into reserved forest), Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (relating to killing or maiming of animals, a cognizable offence), and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959, (which prescribes that possession, carrying, or acquisition of prohibited arms or ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than 3 seven years but which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine). There are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner for that the Petitioner has not approached the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C supra wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 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 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.” 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others1, supra wherein 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 1 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 4 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." 5. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioners establish a special case or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioners neither established a special case nor extra- ordinary circumstance. This Court granted interim orders on an earlier occasion, and the same have been extended from time to time till date. However, in view of the order passed in Mohammed Rasal.C and Jagdeo Prasad supra, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, as they have not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is working as an Attender in IIIT, Edupulapaya, and that he has not committed any offence. It is further contended that all the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and therefore, the protection under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘the BNSS’) may be extended to him. 7. However, as seen from the record, the Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959, which is punishable with imprisonment up to fourteen years. Hence, the benefit 5 under Section 35(3) of the BNSS cannot be granted. There are no specific overt acts against the petitioner. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/ Accused No.2. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioner/Accused to approach the learned Sessions Judge. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall make endeavor to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor concerned, and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in two (02) days. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:15.10.2025. KMS 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9963 OF 2025 15.10.2025 KMS