APHC010536902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10432/2025 Between: 1. TUMMAPUDI RAJESH, S/O. SUBBA RAO, R/O. D. NO. 5-25-7, PALLIKONDA VARI VEEDHI, ITHANAGAR, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522201 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TADIKONDA P S., GUNTUR DISTRICT REP. BY THE PUBLIC PIOSECULUI, HIYLI COURT OT A.P. NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. DASARI PEYYALA YASHODA LAKSHMI, W/O. EDUKONDALU, DAMARAPALLI VILLAGE, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 16.10.2025 IN CRL.P.NO.10432 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VAMSI KRISHNA VARANASI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10432 of 2025 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the Petitioner/Accused for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.19 of 2025 of Tadikonda Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 79, 351(2) of BNS. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent-State. Perused the material on record. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant alleged that the petitioner/accused, an agent of JK Educational Consultancy, promised to secure an MBBS seat for her son at Akaki University in Georgia. He collected Rs.12,00,000/- and her son’s original certificates but he failed to obtain the admission. Despite repeated requests, he neither secured the seat nor returned the money and certificates and allegedly threatened and insulted her. Consequently, she lodged a complaint and the police registered a case against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is falsely implicated in the present crime. Learned counsel would further submit that the complainant has failed to pay the required amount in 3 time for the said reason they could not get the seat. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and, he is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition by stating that serious allegations are made against the petitioner. It is further submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and therefore, the petitioner herein does not deserve for anticipatory bail and hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one and grant of the same is the judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. Aditya Sarda,1 held that: “18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court has consistently emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes. *** 23. Given the above settled legal position, it is no more resintegra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep-rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds. Therefore, such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country.” (emphasis supplied) 1 2025 SCC Online SC 764 4 7. A perusal of the material on record shows that the allegation against the petitioner is that he promised to provide an MBBS seat to the son of the complainant and collected an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- along with the original certificates, but failed to secure the admission. On being questioned in this regard, the accused threatened the complainant and insulted her modesty. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to recover the amount and the original certificates, which are in the possession of the petitioner/accused. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date:11.03.2026 KNN 5 181 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO:10432 of 2025 11.03.2026 KNN