APHC010466242026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7797/2026 Between: PULUGU MOJESH, S/O. CHANTIBABU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HINDU, S.C. MALA, NATIVE OF D.NO. 4-3- 102/D, OPPOSITE SDA SCHOOL, MADHAVAPURAM ROAD, PITHAPURAM TOWN, PITHAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SURYANSH VILLAGE, NEAR V.S. LAKSHMI COLLEGE, BONDAGUNTA, VALASAPAKALA VILLAGE, KAKINADA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati, Through the S.H.O., Sarpavaram Police Station,Kakinada District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: MALLAVARAPU PRADEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7797 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.221 of 2026 of Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(5), 61(2), 339 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’) and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. 2. Mr. M. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence. He is the sole earning member of his family. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot coexist in respect of the same set of facts, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P.,1, and Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand2. It is further submitted that there has been no progress in the 1 (2024) 10 SCC 690 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7797 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 investigation from the date of dismissal of the earlier bail application till the filing of the present bail application and that the Investigating Officer has deliberately not conducted any further investigation. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. Hence, learned counsel urges that the petition may be allowed. 4. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a likelihood of his absconding, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. It is further submitted that there is no change in the circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail application. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor urges that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, this is the second bail application filed by the petitioner. This Court, in Crl.P.No.7047 of 2026, vide order dated 05.08.2026, dismissed the first bail application filed by the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., and Arshad Neyaz 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7797 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 Khan supra, held that the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot coexist in respect of the same set of facts. 7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.1, and in view of the fact that there is no change in the circumstances from the date of dismissal of the first bail application till the filing of the present second bail application, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail at this juncture. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.09.2026 RSI/DRNR 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7797 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 46 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7797 of 2026 Date: 16.09.2026 RSI/DRNR