APHC010484482026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8177/2026 Between: 1. DAMALA NARASIMHUDU, S/O MIDDEE OBLESU, AGED ABOUT 40YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK,REGIONAL OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM, R/O DOOR NO.2-42, VEMULAPADUVILLAGE, BANAGANAPALLE MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. CHAKALI BASAVARAJU, S/O GARJANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING AS MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,ANANTAPUR, R/O D.NO.2-1, NARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL,KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. AMGOTH PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O RAOJI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING AS MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, PEDA KODAPAGAL,TELANGANA STATE, R/O HOUSE NO.6-23-1054, GOWTHAM NAGAR,NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, represented by the StationHouse Officer, Jarugumalli Police Station, Prakasam District, rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P ADITYA HARSHA VARDHAN 2. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8177 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 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’), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.95 of 2018 of Jarugumalli Police Station, Prakasam District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 5herein for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.’). 2. Sri P.Kasi Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there are no specific over acts attributable to the petitioners and that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning member of their respective families, and, therefore, if they are incarcerated, it would cause undue hardship to their dependants. They are law-abiding citizens. Hence, it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitionersare granted pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8177 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the entire records. 5. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 5 are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 6. The de-facto complainant alleged that the petitioners, being public servants,have committed offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P.,1at paragraph Nos.44 & 49 held as under: “44. At the most, the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate could have issued process for the offence punishable under Section 420IPC i.e. cheating but in any circumstances no case of criminal breach of trust is made out. The reason being that indisputably there is no entrustment of any property in the case at hand. It is not even the case of the complainant that any property was lawfully entrusted to the appellants and that the same has been dishonestly misappropriated. The case of the complainant is plain and simple. He says that the price of the goods sold by him has not been paid. Once there is a sale, Section 406IPC goes out of picture. According to the complainant, the invoices raised by him were not cleared. No case worth the name of cheating is also made out. 49. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See : Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. [Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U.P., (2024) 12 SCC 483 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171] and Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand [Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 SCC OnLineJhar 301” 1(2024) 10 SCC 690 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8177 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand2, at paragraph No.21 held as under: “21. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that if it is the case of the complainant/respondent No. 2 that the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415, punishable under Section 420 IPC. This Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriates the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property. In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously. Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences that are independent and distinct. The said offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other.” 8. Section 406 of ‘the I.P.C.’ deals with criminal breach of trust, which presupposes lawful entrustment of property followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Section 409 of ‘the I.P.C.’ addresses criminal breach of trust public servant, or by banker, or merchant or agent. In contrast, Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.’ addresses cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, which requires deception at the inception of the transaction. Thus, while Section 409 of ‘the I.P.C.’ arises from a breach of an existing fiduciary relationship by a public servant, Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.’ is predicated upon fraudulent inducement at the very outset. The two offences, therefore, operate in distinct spheres. 9. As seen from the record, the petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.3 to 5. Petitioners are working as Divisional Manager/Managers of Syndicate Bank. Accused No.1 is a gold appraiser of the Bank. It is alleged that he took 22025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8177 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 21 Gold Loans from the year 2014 to 2018 by producing fake documents or spurious gold articles/ornaments with the Syndicate Bank and committed fraud. The complaint was originally lodged by Accused No.5 against Accused No.1. In the course of investigation, it appears that the investigating officer arrayed the petitionersas accused in the said crime. Petitioners are employees of Syndicate Bank. They have got fixed abode and that they are the permanent residents of Kurnool District and Nizamabad District. There is no flight risk in case they are enlarged on anticipatory bail. Further the offences of defraud or cheating and misappropriation or breach of trust could not co-exist. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners,as there are no specific overt acts attributable to the petitioners; this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners/accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 on pre-arrest bail with some stringent conditions. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. In the event of the arrest in the above crime, the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 5 shall be enlarged on bail by executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each, withtwo sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction ofthe arresting police officials; 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8177 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 ii. The petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; iii. The petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. iv. The petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 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 petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court. vii. The petitioners/accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8177 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 Date: 21.09.2026 DRNR/PVS 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8177 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8177 of 2026 Date: 21.09.2026 DRNR/PVS