APHC010505492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8509/2026 Between: 1. RASAPPAGARI SREEDEVI, AGE 39 YEARS,C/O. R. DEENADAYAL REDDY,R/O, 10-650, KRANTHI NAGAR, RAJIV NAGAR,JEEVAKONA, TIRUPATI URBAN,TIRUPATI - 517501 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, CID Police Station, A.P Mangalagiri to release the petitioner/accused No.l on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Cr.No. 05/2026 of CID Police Station, A.P Mangalagiri and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 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 No.1, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.05 of 2026 of C.I.D. Police Station, A.P Mangalagiri, registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (for brevity, ‘the IPC’) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The Petitioner has directly approached this Court without getting an Order from the learned Sessions Judge concerned by way of filing a bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, but the application was returned for one reason or the other. Consequently, the petitioner could not get the order from the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner is a borrower of the Bank of Baroda. She availed loans on two occasions for Rs.9,00,000/- & Rs.19,50,000/- respectively. The petitioner account has become N.P.A. as the petitioner could not pay the amount. Based on the complaint lodged by the Manager of the said Bank, police have registered a case in Crime No.05/2026, C.I.D. Police Station, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh. 3 6. In this regard, it is also apposite to refer to Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala 1 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 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.” 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others2 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. 1 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 4 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." 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is disposed of granting liberty to approach the learned designated Sessions Judge by filing an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail at the first instance within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such time, no coercive steps shall be taken by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner/accused No.1 but the petitioner/accused No.1 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.09.2026 KPV/GSN 5 101 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8509 of 2026 30.09.2026 KPV/GSN