APHC010532502025 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: 10369/2025 Between: 1. CHALUVADI HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O RANGANAYAKULU, AGED 57,R/O D.NO.7-1-7/5/1,GUPTHASTEMPLE VIEW, 0PP. SAI BABA TEMPLE, LAWYERPETA, ONGOLE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, SN Puram Police Station, NTR District Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. POSANI AKASH 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, seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner-accused No. 16 in crime No. 114 of 2025 of S.N.Puram Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 316 (2), 338 and 316 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors Establishment Act, 1999. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 16 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 3. 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. 4. 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 1 SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6588 of 2025 3 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." 5. 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." 6. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 16 is that he, being father-in-law of accused No. 5, received an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- from UPIX Group and Rs.1,95,00,000/- from Caramel Pops whereas Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, submits that the petitioner, being father-in-law of accused No. 5, on earlier occasion, lent amount to accused 2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 4 No. 5 who in turn paid that amount to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is aged about 57 years and he has not committed any offence. Learned senior counsel contends that criminal breach of trust and cheating would not go together and that the petitioner is neither member nor promoter nor director of UPXI Group. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not made out any special case or extraordinary circumstance for granting the relief of pre-arrest bail without approaching learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance. 8. The petitioner-accused No. 16 is therefore directed to approach learned Sessions Judge concerned within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and move appropriate application for grant of pre-arrest bail. Until such time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner-accused No. 16. However, the investigating officer may proceed with further investigation of the case and the petitioner-accused No. 16 shall cooperate with the investigation officer. 9. The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. _______________________ Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 15-10-2025, JSK 5 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10369 OF 2025 DATE: 15-10-2025 JSK