APHC010501652026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8435/2026 Between: 1. P VENKATA RAMANAIAH, S/O P. RAMAIAH,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,FORMER BRANCH MANAGER,SYNDICATE BANK, NARASINGOLU BRANCH,PRAKASAM DISTRICT,PRESENTLY WORKING AS MANAGER,CANARA BANK, RAH, TIRUPATI ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. 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: 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime 2 No.95 of 2018, dated 14.10.2018 of Jarugumalli Police Station, Prakasam District, was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C’). 2. Mr.P.Kasi Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the Petitioner is the innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.SaiRohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest 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 pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the entire record. 5. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, 3 now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is 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 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 22025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 5 predicated upon fraudulent inducement at the very outset. The two offences, therefore, operate in distinct spheres. 9. As seen from the record, this court in Crl.P. No.8177 of 2026 granted pre-arrest bail to the accused Nos.3 to 5 with certain stringent conditions by referring that the offence of breach of trust and cheating would not co-exist with each other by relying on the judgments of the Delhi Race Club and Arshad Neyaz Khansupra. The petitioner being the Bank Manager of the Syndicate Bank had just processed the loan for pledging of the spurious gold ornaments which was certified by the true and genuine by Accused No.1 who is Gold Appraiser. The RBI, in this regard, clarified, that with regard to the certification of the genuineness or other wise of the gold ornaments given by the Gold Appraisers, Branch Managers of the Banks have limited role inasmuch as they do not know the niceties of determining the genuineness of the gold ornaments. 10. He has got fixed abode and that he is the permanent resident of Prakasam District. There is no flight risk in case he is enlarged on anticipatory bail. Further the offences of defraud or cheating and misappropriation or breach of trust could not co-exist. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, as there are no specific overt acts attributable to the petitioner; this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.2 on pre-arrest bail with some stringent conditions. 6 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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 Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 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. 7 vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 29.09.2026 DRNR/VMM 8 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8435 of 2026 Date: 29.09.2026 DRNR/VMM