1 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4641 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026 APHC010288772026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4641/2026 Between: 1. SRI PANCHUMARTHI SRAVAN KUMAR, S/O. SREE RAMA RAO,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D.NO. 118-129/507, BLOCK NO.2,SAPTHAGIRI BRUNDAVANAM, NALLAPADU MAIN ROAD,GUNTUR - 522005 A1. 2. SMT SOMEPALLI SRILATHA, W/O SRAVAN KUMAR,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D. NO. 118-129/507, BLOCK NO.2,SAPTAGIRI BRUNDAVANAM APARTMENTS, NALLAPADU MAIN ROADGUNTUR- 522005 A2. 3. SMT CHUKKAPALLI SUMATHI DEVI, , W/O SREE RAMA RAO,AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, D. NO. 118- 129/507, BLOCK NO.2,SAPTAGIRI BRUNDAVANAM APARTMENTS, NALLAPADU MAIN ROADGUNTUR- 522005 A3. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati,Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522239. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4641 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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.1 to 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.249 of 2026 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3) and 338 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNS‟). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that the complainant, a Technical Assistant in the Legal Metrology Department, alleged that the accused persons, in collusion, fraudulently used his and his co- employees‟ personal and official details without consent. The main accused forged signatures and created fake surety documents, showing them as guarantors in various chit fund and loan transactions. By using these forged documents, the accused obtained large amounts from financial institutions and defaulted on repayment, resulting in legal proceedings, salary attachments, financial loss, and mental harassment to the complainant and others. The accused also allegedly suppressed court and legal notices to conceal the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4641 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026 fraud. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed offences of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, causing wrongful loss of approximately Rs.22 Crores. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER 3. Sri K. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to employment- related disputes, and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation. The case is primarily based on documentary evidence, and hence custodial interrogation is not required. There are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed individually to Accused Nos.2 and 3, and the entire family has been roped in without proper basis. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are women, and Accused No.3 is an 83-year-old aged person suffering from ailments, which entitles them to leniency. The delay in lodging the complaint and the civil nature of the dispute indicate misuse of criminal law. The Trial Court erred in rejecting anticipatory bail on vague grounds without considering these aspects, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 4. Per contra, Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4641 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026 may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law and it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: 7. As seen from the record, Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 is an aged woman of about 87 years. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 is also a female aged about 43 years and is the wife of Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1. The de-facto complainant, who is a colleague of Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, alleges that his name, along with those of other co-employees, was shown as guarantors in several chit fund transactions, and that Petitioner No.1 obtained the chit amounts and subsequently defaulted. It is further alleged that in as many as nine chits, the complainant and his colleagues were shown as guarantors, and upon default, the chit companies instituted civil suits against them, resulting in attachment of their salaries. The complaint itself reveals that one-third of their salaries has been deducted, indicating that civil proceedings are pending with regard to the alleged defaults. It is also evident that the liability of the complainant and other co-employees arose as guarantors upon default by the 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4641 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026 principal borrower, namely Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1. Whether Petitioner No.1 fabricated documents or forged the signatures of the complainant and co-employees and used them as surety documents is a matter requiring thorough investigation. For that purpose, custodial interrogation of Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 appears necessary. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, and the petition to that extent is dismissed. However, insofar as Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are the wife and aged mother of Petitioner No.1, and the allegations against them are omnibus and bald in nature without specific overt acts attributed to them. Considering their status and the nature of allegations, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3. 8. In the result, Criminal Petition is partly allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of arrest, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials. ii. The Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required. 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4641 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026 iii. The Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. iv. The Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 18.06.2025 KMS 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4641 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITIONNo.4641 of 2026 Date:18.06.2026 KMS