VV ■s [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF^NDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO; 1478 OF 2026 Between; Syed Naveed, S/o Syed Nazeer Basha, Aged about 46 years, R/o 21- 199, Janda Street, S.PS.R. Nellore District Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Public Prosecutor High court of AP through Station House Officer, 4**^ Town, Dargamitta Police Station,SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh Respondent Petition Under Section 482 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Cr. No. 229/2025 Dargamitta P.S, SPSR Nellore District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI GRANDHI PRIYANKA Advocate for the Petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the Court made the following. ORDER 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1478 OF 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 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.229 of 2025 of Dargamitta Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 316(5) of BNS. Heard Ms.Priyanka Grandhi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and 2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the year 2022 the defacto complainant intended to sell her car and in that connection the accused who is 3. engaged in mediating the sale and purchase of the cars, came into contact with her. Trusting him the complainant entrusted her car to the petitioner who sold the said car to a third party for consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and failed to pay the consideration to the defacto complainant and assured that he would pay the same later, issuing a promissory note and a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- and agreeing to pay interest till settlement. Subsequently five months ago the defacto complainant purchased Honda i20 car and the petitioner who used frequently and visit the house of the complainant, taking advantage of the trust he offered to take the said car for inspection, believing his words the complainant handed over the car to the accused on the very next day after purchase and since then, the accused neither returned the car nor accounted for it and cheated her by taking away the car. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and never committed any offence. The alleged car was not seized from the possession of the petitioner. The defacto complainant herself voluntarily brought and handover the vehicle in the police station and presently the vehicle is laying in the police station, only to create a false impression of criminality and to strengthen a motivated complaint. On 12.01.2026 the police brought the petitioner to the police station, illegally restrained him for two days and seized his mobile phone forcibly, obtained his cheques and promissory notes without following the process of law and without preparing any seizure Mahazur and also threatened him to settle the alleged amounts within five days. The petitioner and the defacto complainant were jointly engaged in the business of purchasing used motor vehicles and selling them to customers and the petitioner is supervising day to day operations and both parties advanced money to vehicle owners and shared profits and losses arising out of business. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient ■■ ,;:-4 sureties to the satisfaction of the" learned Trial Court to secure his presence for the purpose of investigation. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that the investigation is at nascent stage, and vehemently oppose the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. Considering the submissions made, upon perusal of the material on record, and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case that the car was not seized from the possession of the petitioner and in fact it was seized from a secured place by the police and as of now the car in custody of police and the fact that the investigation might have been completed, the question of tampering with the investigation or influencing the witnesses does not arise. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused. 6. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: In the event of arrest of the Petitioners/ Accused, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; I. \ 'V ii. On release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, concerned, once in a week i.e., on every r r i •S \W>> Sunday between 10.30-a.m. and 05.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. The Petitioner/ Accused shall make himself available for investigation and shall cooperate with the investigating officer for further investigation; The Petitioner/ Accused shall not cause any threat inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; IV. The Petitioner/ Accused shall hot leave the limits of Andhra Pradesh State without the express permission from the concerned Court. V. The Petitioner/ Accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Magistrate Court. If he claims that he do not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Court concerned. VI. K.SRIMIVASA raju REGISTRAR SEciTiOH OFFICER SD/- ASStS //TRUE COPY// For t \ ' To. 1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. 2. The Station House Officer, 4^^ Town, Dargamitta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh (by RPAD) 3. One CC to SRI. GRANDHI PRIYANKA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati. [OUT] 5. One spare copy f. HIGH COURT DR.VJP,J DATED: 06/03/2026 ORDER CRLP.No.1478 of 2026 ALLOWED