APHC010422662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6949/2026 Between: GANTA RAJESH REDDY, S/O-G HARI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,R/O GANAPATI NAGAR BASTI, IRC VILLAGE,KHORDHA DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE, PIN-751015 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST. 522239 2. KILLAMSETTI RAMAKRISHNA RAO, S/O LATE LAKSHMANA MURTHY,AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O NITYANAND NAGAR, PALASA- KASIBUGGA MUNICIPALITY, SRIK-AKULAM DISTRICT, 532222 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: AMARAVATI LAW CHAMBERS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. MANUBROLU SRINIVASA RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. LEGAL AID 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6949 of 2026 Dated 19.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioner/Accused, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.106 of 2026 of Kasibugga Police Station, Srikakulam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.04.2026 at about 12:00 noon, eight masked persons wearing white T-shirts unlawfully entered the complainant’s jewellery shop at Nithyananda Nagar, Kasibugga. They allegedly dragged the complainant inside the shop, assaulted him, made him sit and handcuffed him. Thereafter, they opened the Biruva and committed theft of gold ornaments, including chains, necklaces, earrings, rings, harams and bracelets, weighing approximately 800 grams. The accused persons allegedly fled from the spot along with the stolen gold ornaments. The complainant, therefore, lodged a report requesting the police to take necessary action against the persons responsible for the alleged assault and robbery. 3. Mr.S.Panda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present crime and has no 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6949 of 2026 Dated 19.09.2026 connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. He submits that the petitioner was merely employed in the old vehicle business of the co- accused, Rama Chandra Sahoo, and that, solely on that basis, the Investigating Agency suspected and implicated him in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner had already appeared before the Investigating Officer on 11.07.2026 and fully cooperated with the investigation. It is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is pursuing his studies, has deep roots in society and is not likely to abscond or evade the process of law. He therefore seeks grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence relating to the robbery of gold ornaments weighing approximately 800 grams. He submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the role of the petitioner is required to be ascertained. He further submits that the petitioner is alleged to be associated with the co-accused and that custodial interrogation may be necessary for effective investigation and recovery of the stolen property. It is further contended that, if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of his 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6949 of 2026 Dated 19.09.2026 absconding or interfering with the ongoing investigation. Therefore, he prays that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for respondent No.2/de-facto complainant opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence of robbery of gold ornaments weighing approximately 800 grams and that the investigation is still in progress. He further submits that the stolen property is yet to be fully recovered and the petitioner’s custodial interrogation may be necessary. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 9. On perusal of the record, the petitioner is arraigned as an accused. The petitioner is aged about 20 years and is at an impressionable age. He is a student. Of course, there are no adverse antecedents reported 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6949 of 2026 Dated 19.09.2026 against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with eight masked persons, allegedly entered the jewellery shop of the de-facto complainant, assaulted and handcuffed him and committed theft of gold ornaments weighing approximately 800 grams. In the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused on the allegation that he was associated with the co-accused. 10. Further, the Petitioner without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance seeking grant of pre-arrest bail, has directly approached this Court, which procedure is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala1 and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others2. This Court had earlier granted some interim protection to the petitioner. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal. C supra wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows:- “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 1 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6949 of 2026 Dated 19.09.2026 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. 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.” 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad supra 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." 13. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS.,’ such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner establishes a special case or extra ordinary circumstance. As 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6949 of 2026 Dated 19.09.2026 seen from the averments, the Petitioner neither established a special case nor extra-ordinary circumstance. However, in view of the orders passed in Mohammed Rasal.C and Jagdeo Prasad supra, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, as he has not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge by filing an application seeking grant of pre- arrest bail. 15. 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: 19.09.2026 RSI 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6949 of 2026 Dated 19.09.2026 82 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6949 of 2026 Date: 19.09.2026 RSI