APHC010365582026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 5878, 6025 and 6069 of 2026 1.CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5878/2026 Between: 1. KONDAPAVULURI MOHAN KUMAR, S/O. KVD RAMA RAO,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC RETD. EMPLOYEE AT MS.NE5WELI LIGNITE CORP LTD. GOVT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING R/O. D. NO. 12-402/3, KEERTHI ESTATES,GOVARDHANAGIRI, TADEPALLI,GUNTUR DISTRICT-522501. 2. KONDAPAVULURI KEERTHI SWAROOPA RANI, W/O.K.MOHAN KUMAR,AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O.D. NO. 12-402/3,KEERTHI ESTATES, GOVARDHANAGIRI,TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522501 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATHI, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KRISHNALANKA POLICE STATION,NTR COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 2. T RESHMA, W/O. DR. SUSHEN KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.E-1601, MID VALLEY CITY APARTMENTS, TADEPALLI, MANGALAGIRI - 522501. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 22.09.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN CRL.P.NO.5878 OF 2026. 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.5878, 6025 & 6069 of 2026 Dated 25.09.2026 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): ANIL KUMAR DEVALARAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6025/2026 Between: 1. TATINENI AMARENDRA NATH CHOUDARI, S/O.PURNACHANDRA RAO,AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS-SHREYA JEWELLERS,R/O.GOPALAKRISHNA RESIDENCY, FLAT NO. 101,NEW PNT COLONY, VIJAYAWADA,NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATHI, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KRISHNALANKA POLICE STATION,NTR COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA,NTR DISTRICT. 2. T RESHMA, W/O. DR. SUSHEN KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.E-1601, MID VALLEY CITY APARTMENTS, TADEPALLI, MANGALAGIRI - 522501. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 22.09.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN CRL.P.NO.6025 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.5878, 6025 & 6069 of 2026 Dated 25.09.2026 1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6069/2026 Between: GOGINENI SATYANARAYANA, S/O. RAMA MOHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEEAT HOTEL KEERTHIS ANUPAMA, R/O. D. NO. 20-139/1, FF3, PARVATHANENI RESIDENCY, BESIDE MASEED ROAD, MURALI NAGAR,KANURU, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATHI, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KRISHNALANKA POLICE STATION,NTR COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA,NTR DISTRICT. 2. T RESHMA, W/O. KONDAPAVULURI SUSHEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, DOCTOR/WORKING AS CONSULTANT ST. ANNS HOSPITAL, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2026 IN CRL.P.NO.6069 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.5878, 6025 & 6069 of 2026 Dated 25.09.2026 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These three Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as they arise out of the same crime, though the petitioners are different. 2. These three Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.100 of 2026 of Krishnalanka Police Station, NTR District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 74, 79, 131, 135, 351(3), 308(5), 314, 316(1), 318(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), Section 175(3) of ‘the BNSS’ read with 61(2) of ‘the BNS’. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 4. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the in-laws of Respondent No.2. The husband of Respondent No.2 is the son of Accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.3 is the manager of Accused Nos.1 and 2, while Accused No.4 is the owner of a gold shop. The allegation against Accused 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.5878, 6025 & 6069 of 2026 Dated 25.09.2026 No.4 is that the gold articles received by Respondent No.2 from her parental home as*Sridhana were allegedly melted by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 with the assistance of Accused No.4. 5. It is further stated that the husband of Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.84 of 2026 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, seeking a decree for specific performance of an oral agreement allegedly entered into between the de-facto complainant and Accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also stated that an unnumbered suit is pending before the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, between Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the husband of Respondent No.2, seeking a decree for partition. 6. Further, the Petitioners without approaching the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance seeking pre-arrest bail and 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. 7. 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 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.Nos.5878, 6025 & 6069 of 2026 Dated 25.09.2026 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 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.” 8. 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." 9. 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 seen from the 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.5878, 6025 & 6069 of 2026 Dated 25.09.2026 averments, the Petitioners 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 Petitioners, as they have not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, these three Criminal Petitions are disposed of, permitting the petitioners to approach the learned Sessions Judge by filing an application seeking grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Until then, the Investigating Officer is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer is directed to conduct further investigation, and the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. 11. In the result, these three Criminal Petitions are disposed of. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 25.09.2026 RSI 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.5878, 6025 & 6069 of 2026 Dated 25.09.2026 66 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 5878, 6025 and 6069 of 2026 25.09.2026 RSI