APHC010154892026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No: 2362/2026 Between: TUMMA DEEPA, W/O.M.RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.26-28-125/A, A.T.AGHRAHARAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SHO, NARSARAOPET I TOWN POLICE STATION, PALNADU DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: S. DILIP JAYA RAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the Petitioner / Accused No.1 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.31 of 2026 on the file of Narsaraopet I Town Police Station, Panladu District for the offences under Sections 316(5), 318(3), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2 2. Sri V.Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and is falsely implicated with an ulterior motive without there being any incriminating material against her. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is no way concerned with the self-help groups in any aspect, including the allegation of obtaining loans as alleged in the report. Learned counsel further contends that the loan was sanctioned in favour of the SHG, the loan amount was disbursed to their own accounts and that the groups are not in existence. As such, the allegation of forging and withdrawal of the amounts by the Petitioner does not arise. There is no entrustment of any property to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is City Mission Manager, Narsaraopet. Learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court that this Court vide Order dated 16.03.2026 in Crl.P.No.1751 of 2026 granted protection to Accused No.2 directing the Police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS and the same protection may be given to the present Petitioner also. 3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that the investigation is at nascent stage and money trail is yet to be unearthed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Considering the submissions, and since the investigation is at the nascent stage and that the complicity of the Petitioner prima facie is not established, 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, concerned Police Authorities are directed to scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) 3 of BNSS and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, which is reiterated in in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another2. c. If any incriminating material is found against the Petitioner and if custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to get the permission of the Court to take the custody of the Petitioner by following due process of law. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:30.03.2026 Note: Issue C.C by tomorrow B/o. Dinesh 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 2 2026 INSC 115 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2362 of 2026 Dt.30.03.2026 Dinesh