APHC010091952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1956/2025 Between: Dr. Nookavarapu Raja Ramesh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER:- 1. The Criminal Petition, u/Sec.482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/A5 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.22/2025 of Narasaraopet I Town Police Station, Palnadu District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offences punishable under Section 316(2), 318(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short „BNS‟) and Section 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.02.2025, the complainant filed a complaint stating that prior 2 to 03.02.2025, a financial fraud involving Sai Sadhana Chit Fund in Narasaraopet had occurred. The complainant had invested in three chit fund schemes with Sai Sadhana Chit Fund, totaling an amount of Rs.2.80 crores. Despite making all payments regularly, the Managing Directors of the chit fund failed to conduct the required auctions and misappropriated the collected funds. Eventually, they absconded, leaving the investors at a financial loss. The complainant further stated in the complaint that many other investors had also been deceived by the fraudulent activities of Sai Sadhana Chit Fund Private Limited and requested legal action against the accused for misappropriation of funds, fraud, and cheating investors. A report was submitted for necessary action, and hence, the case was registered. 4. Heard. Perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A5 submits that A1 is the father-in-law, and A2 is the mother-in-law of the petitioner/A5. They were involved in a chit fund business under the name "Sai Sadhana Chit Fund Private Limited," with A1 serving as Managing Director and A2 as Director, as evidenced by a certificate from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The petitioner contends that he has no involvement in the chit fund business and is a Cardiologist (MDDM), employed as the Lead Interventional Cardiologist at M/s. Aster Ramesh Hospitals, Vijayawada, since 2010. He has been dedicated to his medical practice and not engaged in any chit fund activities. The petitioner attends to patients at M/s. Aster Ramesh Hospitals in Vijayawada and Guntur, treating around 15 to 20 inpatients and 3 40 outpatients daily, in addition to performing 5 to 6 interventional cardiac procedures. His primary grievance is being implicated in the case despite having no connection to his in-laws‟ business. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor claims the petitioner is a sleeping partner, but no evidence has been provided to support this assertion. Given the lack of proof connecting the petitioner to the chit fund business, the petitioner has placed his established career in medicine. Regarding the investigation's progress, the Assistant Public Prosecutor reports that 446 witnesses have been examined. 7. Considering the submissions made, this Court observes that the investigation appears to be largely completed. The case was registered on 03.02.2025, yet no material has been placed to show the petitioner‟s involvement in the alleged offence. 8. It is not the Prosecution's case that the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation and is not available for interrogation. There is no indication of a likelihood that the petitioner would abscond from the court's jurisdiction. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The likelihood of levying accusations to harm or embarrass the petitioner through potential arrest is not improbable. 9. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subjected to the trial's outcome. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the 4 prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be grounds to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, along with the petitioner‟s role in managing hospitals in Vijayawada and Guntur, this Court views that even if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the prosecution that he will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the petitioner has a permanent abode. It is not the prosecution's case that the petitioner would flee away from the jurisdiction of the Court. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner would not impede the ongoing investigation, as the material part of the investigation, has already been completed. 11. Upon careful perusal of the available material, as there is no risk of interference with the ongoing investigation by the petitioner/A.5, this Court finds that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner/A.5 under certain conditions. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner/A5 is directed to surrender before the Station House Officer concerned within two (2) weeks from today and on such surrender, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials and also on condition that the petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required and that he shall not 5 cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. 13. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 01.04.2025. S D P 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Petition No.1956 of 2025 Dated: 01.04.2025 S D P