1 APHC010068472026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1074/2026 Between: 1. Y SRIKANTH ALIAS YADARALAPALLI SREEKANTH, S/O. Y. NARASIMHULU,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,R/O. H.NO. 9/531, ISLARNPURAM,PULIVENDULA, KADAPA DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 390. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Rep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Through SHO, Lingala P.S.,Kadapa District. ...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 Courtpleased to grant anticipatory bail in the event of Petitioner’s arrest in Crime No. 126 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 on the file of Lingala Police Station, Kadapa District in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1074/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNSS”) by the petitioner/accused seeking grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.126 of 2025, dated 01.09.2025, on the file of Lingala Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in between 18.12.2023 and 28.02.2024, at the MPDO Office, Lingala Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, the petitioner/accused, who was working as a Junior Assistant in the MPDO Office, allegedly forged the signatures of the Drawing Officer on cheques pertaining to Union Bank Account No.045212010000776 and withdraw amounts on different occasions. The withdrawals allegedly made are Cheque No.234533 dated 18.12.2023 for Rs.7,23,078/-; Cheque No.234534 dated 01.01.2024 for Rs.6,15,212/-; Cheque No.234535 dated 20.01.2024 for Rs.8,15,232/-; Cheque No.234537 dated 28.02.2024 for Rs.10,04,016/-. Thus, the accused allegedly withdraw a total amount of Rs.31,57,538/-, along with 3 Government recovery amount of Rs.11,79,573/, aggregating to Rs.43,37,111/- , by forging the signatures on cheques and misused the same for his personal benefit. It is alleged that the accused, being a public servant, dishonestly induced delivery of Government property and committed criminal breach of trust. Based on the complaint lodged by one Karnati Surrendranath, the above crime was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that there is enormous delay in lodging the complaint and the defacto complainant, in order to escape from his own liability, has falsely implicated the petitioner as a scapegoat. He would further submit that it is practically impossible for the petitioner to forge the signatures of the Drawing Officer since specimen signatures of the Drawing Officer are already available with the bank and all withdrawals from the account are communicated electronically to the Drawing Officer. He would further submit that the petitioner was neither entrusted with the cheque book nor had any dominion over the funds. He would further submit that, the de-facto complainant himself was the custodian of the cheque books and was also kept under suspension. It is further submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner transferred any of the withdrawn amounts to his personal account. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has already submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, explaining the facts of the case. The petitioner apprehends arrest and consequent humiliation. He further submits 4 that the petitioner is a public servant, having family responsibilities including his wife and two minor sons, and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation and furnish sureties. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary. 6. On a perusal of the case diary, it appears that a substantial part of the investigation is still pending. The investigating agency has to collect and examine additional witnesses and also obtain specimen signatures of the complainant. The signatures on the disputed cheques are required to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparison. Further, relevant bank transactions and other documentary evidence are yet to be collected. The petitioner being a Junior Assistant and custodian of the passbook, cheque book and cash book, abused his official position and forged the signatures on the cheques and misappropriated Government funds, thereby attracting Section 409 IPC, which is a serious non-bailable offence. At the same time, it is also mentioned that the accused is a clerk and thus the offence may fall under Section 408 IPC. However, without proper clarification as to whether the accused falls within the category of “clerk” or “public servant”, the section has been invoked. At this stage, a detailed investigation is necessary to ascertain 5 the exact role of the accused and the applicability of the relevant provisions of law. 7. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of the investigation, and the fact that crucial aspects such as comparison of signatures and verification of bank records are still pending, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 10.03.2026. KKV 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1074/2026 Date: 10.03.2026. KKV