APHC010131762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2109/2026 Between: 1. MOHAMMED BEIG, S/O ANWAR BEIG, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC COOK, R/O D.NO. 34-5-7C, KAJA MUSALAYYA STREET, OPPOSITE PUSHPA HOTEL, KASTURBAIPETA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT - 520010 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PATAMATA P.S, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ...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 Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in connection with Cr. No. 552 OF 2025, dated 06-11- 2025, on the file of S.H.O Patamata P.S., Vijayawada, NTR District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PERAM NRUSIMHA PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2109/2026 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 Cr.No.552 of 2025, dated 06-11-2025, on the file of S.H.O Patamata P.S., Vijayawada, NTR District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, who had developed acquaintance with the accused and had rented out her penthouse to him, stated that the accused was aware of the valuables in her house and had on occasions borrowed gold ornaments. As the complainant and her husband, who carries on business in Hyderabad, used to stay away from their residence for certain periods, they entrusted the spare keys of the house to the accused. In August 2025, before leaving, they kept their gold ornaments in a bag in their bedroom; however, upon returning, they found the ornaments missing, and, suspecting the involvement of the accused, the complainant lodged a report with the police. 3. Heard Sri Peram Nrusimha Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Perused the record. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and is no way connected to the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner herein is working as cook in the house of the accused and as there are several financial disputes between the accused and the petitioner herein, he is arrayed as accused in the present case. The petitioner herein is the sole breadwinner of this family. The allegations of the defacto complainant is that they have lost several gold ornaments and the said allegations is not supported by any evidence as no material evidence is placed on record that the ornaments belong to them. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the present case. He would further submit that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Vijayawada and the question of evading the process does not arise at all. The present case was registered to settle the civil disputes between the defacto complainant and the accused. He finally prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that there is prima facie material against the petitioner, including direct confession of the co-accused clearly implicating him, and documentary evidence such as bank loan records and gold pledge documents in his name. She submitted that the petitioner played a key operational role as a lookout and financial handler, and his involvement is not merely incidental. The petitioner has already exhibited absconding behaviour, and there is a high risk of evasion of trial if anticipatory bail is granted. The investigation is still pending, particularly for recovery of the stolen gold, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to trace the remaining gold, identify the financial 4 trail, and ascertain the involvement of other possible accomplices. Video and audio evidence are also available against the petitioner. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record before this Court, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it is evident that there is prima facie material against the petitioner. This includes the direct confession of the co-accused clearly implicating the petitioner, documentary evidence such as bank loan records and gold pledge documents in his name, as well as corroborative video and audio evidence. The petitioner‟s involvement is not merely incidental; he played a key operational role in the commission of the offence as a lookout and financial handler. Further, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the recovery of the remaining stolen property, to trace the financial transactions relating to the crime, and to identify other possible accomplices. In light of these factors, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 23.03.2026 UPS 5 232 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2109 OF 2026 Dt: 23.03.2026 UPS