1 APHC010490542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9675 OF 2025 Between: 1. SRI KAVALA VENKATA NARASIMHAM, S/O K. SURYA NARAYANA , AGED 44 YRS, R/AT VILLA NO.29, SUNNY ENCLAVE , PEDA RUSH KONDA I.T., JUNCTION VISAKHAPATNAM CITY 530045 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through C.I.D., P.S., Mangalagiri, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP 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 No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 31 of 2024 of C.I.D Police Station, Mangalagiri, registered for the alleged 2 offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with 120-B of of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sri Marada Ramesh Naidu, Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District gave a complaint alleging in connection with the loans obtained in that process some of the officials of State Bank of India were involved in sanctioning loan without looking or verifying as per the law. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by him. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to his dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of his continued presence as and when required. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and that custodial interrogation is neither 3 necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner has already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1, in the interest of justice and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioner may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 6. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioner, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 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 Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. As seen from the record, the Regional Manager of the State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, lodged a report alleging that in the process of sanctioning loans to certain persons, some officials of the State Bank of India colluded with the loanees without properly verifying the record and title deeds. There is an internal dispute among Accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7 in connection with obtaining loans by mortgaging the properties of Accused Nos. 6 and 7. This Court on 10.09.2025 in Criminal Petition No.8591 of 2025 granted bail to the Accused No.2, who is wife of Accused No.1. 10. Applicability of Section 409 of „the I.P.C.,‟ to the present petitioner cannot be decided at this stage, as the petitioner may also be charged with conspiracy along with bank officials in defrauding the bank. Accused No.12 was the Chief Manager, while Accused No.13 processed the documents. Accused Nos.8 and 9 are agriculturists, and Accused Nos.10 and 11 are panel valuers of the State Bank of India. Accused Nos.1 to 7 obtained loans, of which Accused No.7 repaid and cleared his loan, resulting in the closure of 5 that loan account. However, Accused Nos.1 to 6 failed to repay their loans in the year 2021, and the same were declared as NPAs. Accused Nos.6 and 7 stood as guarantors for the mortgage of properties measuring the properties 403 Sq.yards of land. 11. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot coexist simultaneously. 12. In N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove charges under Section 409, 420, and 477A of „the I.P.C.,‟ and Section 13(2) read with Section13(1)(d) of „the Act.,‟ on the ground that no financial loss was caused to the bank, or to any customer; no conspiracy was established; the bank official committed gross misconduct by misusing his position, by acting himself in dereliction of his duties, but there was no criminal misconduct fall under the ambit of Section 409, 420 and 477-A of „the I.P.C‟. 13. 13. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sibil score report was not taken into consideration. 14. Although the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are two similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner vide Crime No.35 of 2022 and Crime No.36 of 2022, the petitioner shall be presumed to 1 Crl.A.No.3114 of 2024, dated 23.08.2025 2 Crl.A.No.5 of 2010, dated 13.12.2021 6 be innocent until the guilty is proved. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 at para No.7 observed that criminal similar adverse antecedents cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 15. The banking officials, while sanctioning loans to the petitioner, any other Accused, or any customer, are required to exercise utmost care in examining the documents produced by the applicants before granting the loan. The Petitioner No.2‟s account was declared as NPA on 06.07.2021, while the report was lodged in 2024. The creditor bank has the right to file an appropriate petition either before the Civil Court or the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the amounts allegedly due from the petitioner and other accused. At the cost of repetition, it has to be observed that it is the duty of the bank, while granting or sanctioning loans, to scrupulously examine all the documents and title deeds submitted by the applicants, so as to arrive at a proper conclusion regarding whether the applicant is entitled to the property on the basis of which the loan is being sanctioned. The Petitioner is aged about 44 years and permanent residents of Villa No.29, Sunny Enclave, Peda Rushi Konda I.TJunction, Visakhapatnam. The Petitioner has fixed abode. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner /Accused No.1. CONCLUSION: 17. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: 3 (2020) 11 SCC 648 7 i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.1, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 09.10.2025. KK 8 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9675 OF 2025 09.10.2025 KK