APHC010438242026 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: 7269/2026 Between: 1. B SATEESH KUMAR, S/O CHANDRA SEKHAR CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC HIGHER GRADE ASSISTANT LIC OF INDIA, R/O. D.NO.6/12/5/19B, 1ST STREET, PITCHIREDDY THOPU, NAIDUPETA TOWN AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NAIDUPET URBAN POLICE STATION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2. MUNGAMURU SUDHEER, S/O. MADHAVA RAO, AGE 56 YEARS, R/O. MIG 222, KPHB COLONY, A.K.NAGAR POST, NELLORE TOWN, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 01.09.2026 IN CRL.P.NO.7269 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. SRIMAN 2 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 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.127 of 2026 of Naidupet Urban Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard Mr. N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Sriman, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, and Mr. A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations against the Petitioner arise out of the collection of insurance premium amounts from customers. The customers had issued cheques towards the instalments/premiums of their insurance policies and the Petitioner had deposited the said cheques with the concerned bank. However, there was some delay in crediting the amounts covered by the said cheques to the account of Respondent No.2/LIC. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, pursuant to the interim order dated 01.09.2026, the Petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and cooperated with the investigation. It is further submitted that the case primarily rests upon documentary evidence and that 3 the amount allegedly misappropriated by the Petitioner has already been deposited with Respondent No.2/LIC. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner had earlier challenged the suspension proceedings initiated by LIC by filing W.P.No.13504 of 2026 and that, subsequent to the filing of the said Writ Petition, LIC took steps and got registered an FIR against the Petitioner. It is contended that, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the documentary nature of the evidence and the cooperation extended by the Petitioner, there is no necessity for his custodial interrogation. It is therefore urged that the Petitioner may be granted the relief of pre-arrest bail, as there is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from justice. 6. Per contra, Mr. A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that the allegations against the Petitioner are not confined merely to the delayed crediting of the premium amounts. It is specifically alleged that the Petitioner collected an amount of Rs.17,16,158/- from customers towards insurance premiums and failed to credit the same to the account of LIC. It is further submitted that, though the customers had actually tendered cash towards the insurance premiums, the Petitioner deliberately made entries in the relevant documents showing that the amounts had been paid by way of cheques. 7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the Petitioner allegedly falsified the accounts and forged/fabricated LIC records 4 and receipts by making false entries therein. The investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary for collecting crucial information and documents and for ascertaining the further modus operandi allegedly adopted by him. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 8. Sri Sriman, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that, on account of the alleged acts and irregularities committed by the Petitioner, the reputation and functioning of LIC have been affected. It is further submitted that, if the amounts collected from policyholders towards insurance premiums are not duly credited to their respective policy accounts, the policyholders and their nominees may face difficulties in claiming the benefits under the policies in the event of the death of the insured or occurrence of any other insured contingency. 9. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the Petitioner was placed under suspension by LIC and thereafter he filed W.P.No.13504 of 2026 questioning the said suspension. It is contended that the complaint was lodged subsequently, about five months after the alleged suspension. However, such chronology of events would not, by itself, dilute the specific allegations made against the Petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 further submits that the nature of the allegations requires a thorough investigation, particularly with regard to the manner in which the amounts were collected, the entries 5 allegedly made in the records, the documents allegedly fabricated, and the manner in which the amount of Rs.17,16,158/- was allegedly misappropriated. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 11. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 12. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 13. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat1, wherein at para No.18, it is held as under: “18. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention. Additionally, the appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre-trial detention. The Court also takes note of the fact that the FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against the appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory bail is justified. Accordingly, while the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required, he shall not be taken into custody, subject to conditions imposed hereinafter to ensure his participation in the inquiry process.” 14. Thus, in Pradip N. Sharma supra, at paragraph No.18, it is observed that where the allegations are primarily based on documentary evidence and custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary, anticipatory bail may be granted. The Court also noted the accused’s willingness to cooperate with the 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 457 6 investigation and absence of material indicating evasion, obstruction, or tampering with evidence. It was further observed that scrutiny of official records can be undertaken without custodial detention, subject to appropriate conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation. 15. In the present case, though learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case rests primarily upon documentary evidence and that the amount allegedly misappropriated has already been deposited with LIC, the allegations against the Petitioner are not confined merely to a delay in crediting the premium amounts. 16. The specific allegation is that the Petitioner collected an amount of Rs.17,16,158/- from customers towards insurance premiums and failed to credit the said amounts to the account of LIC. It is further alleged that, despite the customers having paid the amounts in cash, the Petitioner made entries in the relevant records showing that the payments were made through cheques. The prosecution has also alleged falsification of accounts and forging/fabricating of LIC records and receipts by making false entries therein. 17. Therefore, the investigation is required to ascertain, inter alia, the manner in which the amounts were collected from the customers, the manner in which the relevant entries were made in the LIC records, the documents allegedly manipulated or fabricated, the persons involved, and the manner in which the amount of Rs.17,16,158/- was allegedly dealt with. The Investigating Agency has specifically expressed the necessity of custodial 7 interrogation for the purpose of collecting such information and documents and for ascertaining the alleged modus operandi. 18. It is true that the Petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the interim order dated 01.09.2026 and cooperated with the investigation. Such cooperation is certainly a relevant circumstance. However, the fact that the Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation pursuant to an interim order, by itself, would not conclude the question as to whether his custodial interrogation is necessary at this stage, particularly when specific allegations of misappropriation and falsification of records have been made against him and the investigation is still in progress. 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the amount allegedly misappropriated has already been deposited with LIC also requires consideration. However, repayment or deposit of the alleged amount, by itself, does not efface the allegations relating to the manner in which the amount was allegedly collected, retained or misappropriated, or the further allegations concerning falsification and fabrication of records. These aspects are matters for investigation. 20. The submission with regard to the sequence of the suspension proceedings and the subsequent registration of the crime has also been considered. Even assuming that there was a delay between the suspension of the Petitioner and the lodging of the complaint, such delay, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient to 8 negate the specific allegations made against the Petitioner or to hold that custodial interrogation is wholly unnecessary. 21. The Petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail, particularly when specific allegations are made against him and the Investigating Agency has expressed the necessity of his custodial interrogation for the purpose of unearthing certain facts relating to the alleged offences. 22. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)3, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the principles governing the grant of pre-arrest bail and the need to consider the nature and gravity of the allegations and the requirements of investigation while exercising such discretionary jurisdiction. 23. In the present case, having regard to the specific allegations of collection and alleged misappropriation of an amount of Rs.17,16,158/-, the further allegation of falsification and fabrication of LIC records and receipts, the stage of investigation, and the specific submission of the Investigating Agency regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation, this Court is not inclined to grant the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner at this stage. There are no merits. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 2 (1980) 2 SCC 565 3 (2020) 5 SCC 1 9 24. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:30.09.2026 PRA 10 113 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7269 of 2026 Date: 30.09.2026 PRA