1 APHC010667122025 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: 12757/2025 Between: 1. SHASHWATI BHUSHAN, W/O DR. K. AVINASH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,DOCTOR, R/O D.NO.3-I6I-I5-I. SBI COLONY, MADANAPALLE , ANNAMAYYADISTRICT. 2. K AVINASH, S/O K.ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. DOCTOR, R/OD.NO.3-161-15-1. SBI COLONY, MADANAPALLE , ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OFANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE SHO, MADANAPALLE II TOWN PS, MADANAPALLE, UNDER SUB DIVISIONALPOLICE OFFICER, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. JITENDRA KANYALUR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.8 and 9 seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.179 of 2025 on the file of Station House Officer, Madanapalle II Town Police Station, Madanapalle, under the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Madanapalle, Annamayya District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2)(a), 111(2)(a), 318(2), 105 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 18, 19 and 21 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act. 2. Heard Sri K.Jitendra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent police registered the above crime alleging illegal transplantation of kidney being conducted without obtaining necessary authorization as required under law. It is alleged that the accused persons were running a hospital and performing illegal kidney transplantation surgeries. During the course of such illegal transplantation, a person aged about 29 years allegedly died. Initially, the FIR mentioned Accused Nos.1 to 7 and Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 were arrested on 15.11.2025. Subsequently, in the remand report, the names of the present petitioners were also mentioned and they were arrayed as Accused Nos.8 and 9. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the petitioners are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 20.03.2022 and they are residing separately on the second floor without having any interaction with Accused No.1. It is further submitted that Petitioner No.1/A8 is an Ophthalmologist (Eye Specialist) and Petitioner No.2/A9 is an Orthopaedic Doctor and neither of them deals with kidney related treatment or transplantation procedures. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged illegal kidney transplantation activities. Learned counsel further contends that Petitioner No.1/A8 is carrying three months pregnancy and requires constant care and support. If the petitioners are arrested, it would cause serious hardship to them and may adversely affect the health of the pregnant petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioners have permanent residence, are practicing doctors and are willing to cooperate with the investigation. 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the present case relates to a illegal kidney transplantation racket conducted without proper authorization or permission and the same has resulted in the death of a young person aged about 29 years. She would further submit that Accused No.1, who is the father of Accused No.9, is a doctor and the investigation so far reveals that the hospital was being managed through Accused No.9, who is also a doctor. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is still in progress and 4 custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary. She would further brought to the notice of this Court that the investigating agency had earlier filed applications seeking police custody of the arrested accused and the same were dismissed and revision petitions were preferred by the prosecution. 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 as follows: “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) 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab2, has held that though anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, its exercise must depend upon the facts of each case, having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar3, reiterated that anticipatory bail should not 1 2025 SCC Online SC 764 2 (1980) 2 SCC 565 3 (2012) 4 SCC 379 5 be granted as a matter of routine, especially where the investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation is necessary. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement4, it was further held that in cases involving serious and organised offences, the necessity of custodial interrogation and the potential impact on investigation are relevant considerations for declining pre-arrest bail. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)5, while affirming the width of discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C., emphasised that such discretion must be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the nature of accusations, role attributed to the accused, and the stage of investigation. 8. In the present case, the allegations pertain to an organised illegal kidney transplantation racket in contravention of the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, which is stated to have resulted in the death of a young individual. The investigation is still ongoing. The material placed before this Court prima facie indicates that the hospital where the alleged transplantation was carried out was being managed by the Accused persons, and that during the course of the surgery, a 29-year-old person died. Since the investigation is at a nascent stage and the role of the Petitioners is yet to be fully determined, and having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. 4 (2019) 9 SCC 24 5 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 9. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that Petitioner No.1 / Accused No.8 is a pregnant woman and considering her condition, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted interim protection to her vide Order dated 26.12.2025 which will be in force till 26.06.2026. Learned counsel sought permission of the Court to withdraw the petition so far as Petitioner No.1 / Accused No.8 is concerned, continuing the interim protection granted earlier and with a liberty to file a fresh petition as and when required. 10. In view of the submissions made and the interim protection granted to Petitioner No.1 / Accused No.8 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the criminal petition, insofar as it relates to Petitioner No.1 / Accused No.8, is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh petition as and when necessary. Insofar as Petitioner No.2 / Accused No.9 is concerned, the criminal petition stands dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. _________________________________________ DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date 11.03.2026 KKV 7 THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12757/2025 Date 11.03.2026 KKV