APHC010722392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13628/2025 Between: 1. BURRA VAMSI ALIAS NANI, S/O BURRA VARAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 24.YEARS,R/O 3-57, RAYANAPADU VILLAGE, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521241. ACCUSED NO.11 / PETITIONER NO.1 2. YERRAPOTHU KESAVA SIVA NAGA SAI KARTHIK ALIAS SAI, S/O YERRAPOTHUBALARAMA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS DOB 19-03-2005, R/O 2-127, GUDURU MANDAL, TARAKATURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 521 156. ACCUSED NO.14 / PETITIONER NO.2 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 not to arrest the petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 14 in connection with Cr.No. 161/2024 of Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada City and grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to such conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 2 1. Dr ANWAR SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13628/2025 ORDER : The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 14 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.161 of 2024 of Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 127(2), 109(1), 140(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS. 2. Heard Dr.Anwar Shaik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused, acting in furtherance of their common intention, committed offences of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, attempt to murder, kidnapping for ransom and criminal intimidation during the period from 11.08.2024 to 12.08.2024, which was reported on 12.08.2024 at about 08:30 a.m., wherein the defacto complainant, a mobile shop owner from Kadapa, stated that one Narasimha lured him by offering to sell a so-called chemical coin allegedly worth Rs.2 crores for Rs.3 lakhs, and after initial meetings at Tirupati and Madanapalle, upon the complainant expressing suspicion and withholding payment, the accused deceitfully called him to Vijayawada, where on 11.08.2024 the complainant, along with his friend and driver, was assaulted, abducted and wrongfully confined at Shanthi Lodge, Governorpet, and threatened with dire 4 consequences while demanding ransom of Rs.30 lakhs, and the complainant was rescued only after he managed to alert his brother-in-law, thereby giving rise to the present crime. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents who have been falsely implicated in this case for the purpose of statistics. He would further submit that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and there are no antecedents against them. He would further submit that more than sixteen months have lapsed since the registration of the case in August, 2024, the investigation might have been completed. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to secure their presence for the purpose of investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays for release of the petitioners on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Investigation is at crucial stage as there are specific allegations made against the petitioners. He would further submit that at the time of occurrence, the accused called themselves by their own names. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally submits that there are no tenable grounds to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5 Determination by this Court: 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 Sarda1 held that: “18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court has consistently emphasized 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. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar &Anr2, set aside an anticipatory bail granted to an accused individual charged with embezzling over ₹3 crores. While the High Court granted bail on the grounds that half the money was returned and the accused was willing to disclose assets, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found this reasoning as untenable because it ignored a status report stating the accused was on the run and that his custodial interrogation was utmost required for a fair investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that granting 1 2025 SCC Online SC 764 2 2025 INSC 1396 6 extraordinary relief like anticipatory bail without considering the gravity of the offence or the accused's conduct constitutes a failure to apply relevant legal principles. 8. Having regard to the gravity and magnitude of the alleged offences, the prima facie material indicating the Petitioners’ role, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 03.02.2026. UPS 7 151 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13628/2025 Dt:03.02.2026 UPS