APHC010506362025 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: 9946/2025 Between: Guntaka Vamsi and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. MALIREDDY GOWTHAM 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 Nos.1 and 2, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.260 of 2025 on the file of Nellore Rural Police Station, Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 2 115(2), 118(1), 308(5), 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNS‟). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 05.07.2025 at 11.00 hours at Satyamji Layout, Vaviletipadu Village, Nellore Rural Mandal, wherein a verbal altercation took place between one Vinith and complainant over abusing the complainant‟s uncle, meanwhile the complainant‟s friends A1 and A2 went to them on bullet motor cycle, forcibly took the complainant so saying Complainant „what was still talking with him‟ on their motor cycle to open plots of Gundlapalem Village, both the accused beat him with hands and legs, accused No.1 beat him with hockey stick, accused no.2 threatened him with dire consequences on point of knife, further accused No.3 and Mannavarapu Harish and Tulluru Eswar and some others went there, beat the complainant with hockey sticks and robbed cash of Rs.1,000/- from his pocket, coming to know the same when, complainant‟s uncle went there, all the accused absconded away. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. Malireddy Gowtham, learned counsel for the Petitioners respectfully submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any 3 conditions that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners have got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 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 Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they 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 Petitioners 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. 4 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. The allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is that accused No.1 beat the defacto complainant with hockey stick on his hands and legs. Accused No.2 on point of knife threatened the defacto complainant to kill. It was also alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 took away forcibly Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of the defacto complainant. Therefore, the investigation officer has added Section 308(5) „the BNS‟ against the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhananjay Alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar1 wherein at para Nos.9, 10, 11, and 12 it was held as under: "9. It is in the aforementioned prmise the allegations that Gautam Dubey and the appellant slapped the first informant and took out Rs. 1580 from his upper pocket mut be viewed. 10. No allegation was made that the money was paid by the informant having been put fear of injury or putting him in such fear by the appellant was intentional. 1 (2007) 14 SCC 768 5 11. The first informant, admittedly, has also not delivered any property or valuable security to the appellant. 12. A distinction between theft and extortion is well known. Whereas offence of extortion is carried out by overpowering the will of the owner, in commission of an offence of theft the offender's intention is always to take without that person's consent." 11. In Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra2 at para No.3 it was held as under: “3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P.7 and we find therefrom that the complainants have alleged that the Bocused persons have shown copies of international warrants issued against the complainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent to Rs 110 crores). In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as defined in Section 383 IPC is made out. Section 383 IPC states that: "383. Extortion. Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, d commits 'extortion"." Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been registered by the police." 12. Further in Hemant Dhirajlal Banker v. State of Maharashtra3 at para No. 15 and 18 it was held as under: "15. This definition indicates following ingredients of the offence of extortion, which must be present for constituting it. (1) Intentionally putting any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person; (ii) Inducing of the person so put in fear dishonestly, (iii) Delivery to any person any property or valuable security by the person put in fear and subjected to dishonest inducement. If any of these ingredients is absent, the offence of extortion would not be complete, as held in the case of Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.1. In an earlier case of R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay and Anr, similar view was taken by the Apex Court." 18. Of course, in the case of Bhagwan Gajanan Phandat Vs. State of Maharashtra, along with connected matter, a Coordinate Bench of this court, of which one of us was a 2 (2014) 15 SCC 357 3 Crl.A.No.488 of 2020 dated 27.06.2023 6 part, has, while dealing with the offence punishable under Section 387 of the IPC, observed that the section does not say that the threatened person has delivered any property in pursuance to the threat. This observation, in our considered view, cannot be understood as laying down an authoritative proposition of law that even without any delivery of property, offence of extortion can be constituted, the reason being that the statement does not make it clear as to whether or not delivery of any property following the threat given is an essential part of the offence of Section 387. The statement is only about the threatened person delivering any property. Secondly, it has been made in ignorance of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforestated cases of Isaac Isanga Musumba, Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh and R.S. Nayak (Supra). So, it is clear now that not only putting a person under fear of any injury and dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver the property but also actual delivery of property are a sine-qua-nonof the offence of extortion, as defined under Section 383 IPC. With this clarity in mind, let us now proceed to consider the allegations made against both the applicants" 13. This Court also in Criminal Petition No.8673 of 2025, dated 13.08.2025 and Criminal Petition No.7179 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025 observed that Section 308(5) of the BNS is not applicable in similar to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the present case also, it was alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 forcibly took away Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of the defacto complainant. The ingredients of extortion as mentioned under Section 308(5) of „the BNS‟ are not attracting. Barring Section 308(5) of „the BNS‟, rest of the offences are all punishable below seven (7) years imprisonment. 14. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar4, and Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand5, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of „the B.N.S.S.,‟ 2023). The petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 4(2014) 8 SCC 273 5(2023) 8 SCC 632 7 15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of „the BNS‟/41-A of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.10.2025 S D P 8 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9946 of 2025 Date:08.10.2025 S D P