APHC010280242026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4448/2026 Between: 1. TANGELLA SRINIVASA RAJU, S/O. SESHAM RAJU,AGED 43 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.2-28, SOMIREDDY BAZAR, MACHERLA TOWN, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522 426 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 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 enlarge bail to the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 60 of 2026, on the file of Macherla Town Police Station, Palnadu District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KOPPULA SARITA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.60 of 2026 on the file of Macherla Town Police Station, Palnadu District, for the offences punishable under Sections 9-I Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (APGA), 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. However, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar3, which mandates that arrest shall not be made in a routine or mechanical manner and that the reasons necessitating arrest must be duly recorded after satisfying the statutory requirements, the investigating officer is bound to follow Section 35(3) of the BNS. Further, the Petitioner without approaching the learned Session Judge at the first instance seeking pre-arrest bail and has directly approached this Court, which procedure is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala4 and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and 1 ‘the BNSS’ 2 ‘the BNS’ 3 (2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. others5. 4. 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 pre-arrest 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. 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/ extra- ordinary circumstances.” 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad supra wherein 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 5 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant- complainant as a party." 6. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS.,’ such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner establishes a special case or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioner neither established a special case nor extra-ordinary circumstance. However, in view of the orders passed in Mohammed Rasal.C and Jagdeo Prasad supra, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, as he has not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to follow the mandate of Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’ and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar supra, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. If, during the course of investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 22.06.2026 JLSR 134 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4448 of 2026 22.06.2026 JLSR