APHC010266022026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4278/2026 Between: 1. MADDALI SAMBASIVARAO, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA RAO,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-353/2,POLAMKAMPADU, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT,PIN 522501 2. TADAVARTHI NAVEEN, S/O. TADAVARTHI KANAKAPUROSHATHAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,R/O. D.NO. 9-79-4, DHARAMAPURI VARI VEEDHI,HINDU HIGH SCHOOL, KOTHA PETA, VIJAYAWADAV URBAN, NTR DISTRICT. PIN 520001. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by itsPublic Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradeshat Amaravati, Pin Code 522239 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KUMAR MARPU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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 & 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.22 of 2026 on the file of Bhavanipuram Police Station, NTR District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on or before 11.01.2024 at about 16:00 hours, the accused persons, in concert and with criminal conspiracy and common intention, forged and fraudulently employed documents purporting to be valuable securities relating to the ancestral lands of the complainant Patiballa Venkateswara Sarma and his joint family at Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada, with the deliberate design to cheat and unlawfully deprive them of their property, thereby attracting penal liability under the provisions of ‘the I.P.C.’ 3. Sri Kumar Marapu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the allegations levelled against Accused Nos.1 and 2 are wholly concocted and bereft of substance, inasmuch as the complaint lodged by Patiballa Venkateswara Sarma, alleging cheating and forgery of valuable securities in respect of ancestral lands, is in reality a civil dispute inter se the family members, already the subject matter of O.S.No.154 of 2023 on the file of the 3 learned XII Additional District Court, Vijayawada, wherein ad‑interim injunction has been granted. It is urged that the Petitioners, law‑abiding citizens with fixed abode, have never indulged in preparation of forged documents, nor is there any specific averment of their active participation in the alleged crime, except for the mechanical mention of their names in the FIR. The invocation of Sections 120‑B, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ against them, without any iota of evidence, is a clear abuse of process of law and a colourable exercise of criminal jurisdiction, converting a purely civil dispute into a criminal case. It is further contended that similarly placed co‑accused have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, that the Petitioners are ready to furnish solvent sureties and abide by any conditions imposed, and that their arrest would cause irreparable hardship and injury. In these circumstances, it is urged that this Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that without approaching the learned Sessions Judge of first instance, the Petitioners filed Criminal Petitions directly before this Court, such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Rasal C. v. State of Kerala1 and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2728 4 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the entire records. 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsels for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 7. As seen from the record, Petitioners were arraigned as Accused Nos.1 & 2, they have not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance for grant of pre-arrest bail, whereas Accused Nos.4 & 5 have approached the learned Sessions Judge and obtained anticipatory bail. Filing of anticipatory bail without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C supra wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows: “7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case. 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of prearrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 5 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/ extraordinary circumstances.” 8. In Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para No. 6 as under: “6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant- complainant as a party.” 9. Albeit, this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioners establish a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioners neither established a special circumstances nor extra-ordinary circumstance. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, Criminal Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance and move appropriate application for grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of two 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108 6 (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any observations made in this order shall not hinder the learned Sessions Judge concerned from independently applying its mind and passing appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.06.2026 VTS