APHC010188642026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2799/2026 Between: NUDURUMATI SATHISH, S/O.VEERA RAJU,AGED 39 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 20- 1204, CHINTALA KATTA,AVINAGADDA ROAD, 0PP. M.V.R.APARTMENTS,YANAMALAKUDURU, VIJAYAWADA RURAL. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati through Station House Officer,III Town Police Station, Rajamahendravaram ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’), by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.531 of 2020 of III Town Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, registered for the alleged offences 2 punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the defacto complainant is working as a clerk in Venkateswara General Market, Rajamahendravaram, and came into acquaintance with the accused through known persons. It is alleged that, believing the deceitful words made by A.1 and his wife, stated to be a senior government employee, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused in four installments, on the assurance that his wife would arrange houses, pension and employment. It is further alleged that, apart from the complainant, others also paid a total sum of about Rs.18,00,000/- to the accused. However, the accused neither fulfilled the said promises nor returned the amounts. Hence, the present crime. 3. Heard Sri B.Sudhakar Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/A.1 had issued a legal notice dated 12.06.2020 to the defacto complainant, demanding to repay the amount due under a promissory note said to have been executed by the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that there was no reply from the defacto complainant to the said notice. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S. No.854 of 2020 on 15.10.2020, subsequent to the registration of the present crime on 20.06.2020. Learned counsel would further contend that the crime pertains to the year 2020 and that the same has been lodged only to overcome the said civil suit. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 3 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the present petition may be disposed of by issuing appropriate directions to the petitioner/A.1 in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1. 6. Considering the submissions, this Criminal petition is disposed of, with the following; a. Investigating Officer is at liberty to complete the investigation, in accordance with law. b. In the event of any coercive action sought to be taken against the petitioner/A.1, concerned police authorities are further directed to scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35 (3) of BNSS., [Section 41-A Cr.P.C] and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra). c. The Petitioner/A.1 shall make himself available for investigation and shall cooperate with the investigating officer for further investigation. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 16.04.2026 SAB 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 4 166 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2799/2026 Dt.16.04.2026 SAB