APHC010507532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9968/2025 Between: Dadapeer and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners/accused Nos.5, 8 and 12 seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to them in crime No.142 of 2024 of B.Kothakota Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 308(5), 126(2), 118(1), 78, 79 and 351(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’). 2 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners are shown as accused Nos.5, 8 and 12 in this crime. The petitioners/accused Nos.5, 8 and 12, 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 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. 1 SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6588 of 2025 3 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 allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioner No.1/accused No.5 allegedly beat the victim with sticks, petitioner No.2/accused No. 8 allegedly kicked the victim, and petitioner No. 3/accused No.12 allegedly abused the victim in filthy language. The involvement of the petitioners came to light based on the confession of accused No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, except for the offence under Section 308(5) of ‘the BNS’, the remaining offences are punishable with 2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 4 imprisonment of less than seven years. It is further submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 308(5) of ‘the BNS’ is not attracted. 7. Be that as it may, since the petitioners have 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 petitioners are permitted to move an appropriate application before learned Sessions Judge concerned for grant of pre-arrest bail. 8. In view of the above, the criminal petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners/accused Nos.5, 8 and 12 to approach learned Sessions Judge and make an application for grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Until such time, no coercive steps shall be taken by the police against the petitioners/Accused Nos.5, 8 and 12. However, the investigating officer shall proceed with the investigation. The petitioners/accused Nos.5, 8 and 12 shall cooperate with the investigating officer. 9. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 13.10.2025, S D P 5 56 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9968 OF 2025 DATE: 13.10.2025 S D P