APHC010709612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13447/2025 Between: 1. BANDI SANJAY KANTH BHAGAVAN, S/O.RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,OCCITEA STALL, R/O.D.NO.8- 56,HARIJANAWADA, KOLLETIKOTA,KRISHNA DISTRICT.CHODAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPTD BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CID,HIGH COURT OF A.P. 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 direct the Respondent Police to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused (3) on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.30 of 2022, of CID, Police Station, A.P. Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P., and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D V V S S N H BHUJANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13447/2025 ORDER : The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 8the BNSS9) by the Petitioner/Accused No.3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.30 of 2022, of CID, Police Station, A.P. Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P., registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420, 403, 409 r/w 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard Sri D.V.V.S.S.N.H.Bhujanga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner/A3 and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that that as per the investigation report with regard the routine audit conducted on 05.07.2021, it is found that TNL Madhava Rao, the then Bank Manager and V.Venkata Ramana, the then field officer, have sanctioned loans by violating the Bank norms beyond their discretionary powers. The bank9s officials failed to follow the bank9s extant guidelines related to process of sanction and disbursement of loans. The accused in this case availed loans at different Banks on same property for the same purpose. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.3 in the present case. It is contended that the 3 petitioner is innocent and has no manner of involvement in the alleged offence. Learned counsel would also point out that, all the allegations against the petitioner are punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment. The petitioner has permanent abode within the territorial limits. He does not have any knowledge about the loans taken. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon9ble Court and, therefore, prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the petition by imposing appropriate conditions. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation in the present matter is still in progress. It is submitted that the petitioner is one of the borrowers who availed loans from the banks on a fraudulent basis and acted as a middleman, playing an active and crucial role in the commission of the offence. During the course of investigation, the prosecution has collected bank transactions indicating the role of the petitioner in the fraud. It is further submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail as a prima facie case has been made out against him based on the material collected during the course of investigation. It is also contended that, if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence and hamper the ongoing investigation. Therefore, he prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4 6. Considering the submissions made and upon careful perusal of the material on record, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the investigation is still at a nascent stage. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition are disputed questions of fact which require a full-fledged investigation and cannot be gone into at this stage. 7. 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 Hon9ble 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 res integra 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.= 12025 SCC Online SC 764 5 (emphasis supplied) 8. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged and the stage of the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. 9. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 03.03.2026. UPS 6 222 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13447/2025 Dt: 03.03.2026 UPS