APHC010037932026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 591/2026 Between: 1. SAHILA HAIDERALI HIRANI ALISSAHIL IRANI,, AGED 31 YEARS, C/O HAIDERALI HIRANI,R/O FLAT NO.2863, KOHINOOR CITY C CHS LTDKITROL ROAD, OFF LBS MARG, NEAR KOHINOOR HOSPITALKURLA-WEST, MUMBAI-400070 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...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 enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.309 of 2025 on the file of Mydukur P. S, YSR Kadapa District and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 591/2026 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.4, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime.No.309 of 2025 of Mydukur Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 308(5), 351(2), 127(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arun Showri.G, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, the defacto complainant gave a report on 04.08.2025 stating that on 27.04.2025, at approximately, 07:00 AM, on instructions of one Harish regarding the disparaging emails sent to highranking officials, PA of Sri P.Mahesh Yadav, M.P., of Eluru, the complainant went to the outskirts of Mydukur on Nandyala Road and found one numberless Innova car and met Accused No.2 who was present in that vehicle with another person in the driving seat. Accused No.2 threatened him with a knife at his throat, robbed him of Rs.70,000/- in cash, and forcibly rendered him unconscious after tying a kerchief over his face. When the complainant regained consciousness at Hotel Sadanand, Mumbai, in the presence of Accused No.1, the accused demanded ransom of Rs.5.00 crores 3 to stop circulation of blackmailing emails against the M.P. and forcibly extorted Rs.2.00 lakhs from Santosh Mani Kumar. On these allegations, a case in Cr.No.309 of 2025 of Mydukur Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 351(2), 127(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, Accused No.4, is innocent and has no knowledge of the alleged incident. It is contended that the present complaint is based on bald and vexatious allegations made in the disclosure statement of the co-accused. The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, was neither named in the FIR nor was there any mention of his presence or involvement during the alleged occurrence. It is alleged that the petitioner is part of the legal team only based on the confession statement of Accused No.1. There is no tangible evidence to establish the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been targeted solely for discharging his professional duties, and his arraignment appears to be an attempt to intimidate the legal fraternity and deprive the primary accused of his right to legal representation. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court to secure his presence for the investigation. He finally prays that pre-arrest bail be granted to the petitioner. 4 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that there are specific overt-acts against the petitioner/Accused No.4 and the investigation is still in progress. If the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of threatening of witnesses of prosecution and tampering of evidences of prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner/Accused No.4 being an Advocate, played a vital role in commission of the offence. He would further submit that the investigation is at a nascent stage and so far, has collected WhatsApp chats, Gmail data, and Call Data Records, which apart from the confession of the Accused No.1, implicate the petitioner in the crime. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage and he finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner, and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. Apart from the confession of Accused No.1, the investigation has revealed WhatsApp chats, Gmail data, and Call Data Records indicating the petitioner’s involvement. In view of the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, and the risk that granting anticipatory bail at this stage may lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 5 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 18.02.2026. UPS 6 255 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 591/2026 Dt: 18.02.2026 UPS