Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement :30.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010307782026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4881/2026 Between: 1. REPALLE SUDHEER, S/O REPALLE BENJEMEN, AGE29 YEARS,OCC PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O H.NO.33-182/1, BANDAR NAGAR WARDNO. 14, WANAPARTHY, DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SHAIK RAFI 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with 2 Crime No.145 of 2026 on the file of IV Town Police Station, Kurnool District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69, 318(4), 351(2), 79, 78(1)(i) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de-facto complainant alleged that the accused, by falsely promising to marry her, induced her into a physical relationship and subsequently refused to honour his promise. It is further alleged that when the complainant insisted on marriage, the accused and his family members threatened her and categorically declined the proposal. Owing to the alleged deception, intimidation, and mental harassment, the complainant attempted to consume sleeping pills and, after recovering, lodged the present complaint. 3. Sri Shaik Rafi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire prosecution case rests on false and concocted allegations, lodged with mala fide intent to harass the Petitioner and his family. The complainant, aged 26 years, has knowingly made baseless claims of promise of marriage and physical abuse, while even demanding that the Petitioner be compelled to marry her, which itself reveals the mala fide nature of the complaint. The Petitioner never promised marriage, never cheated, nor abused the complainant, and his family members never visited or threatened her as alleged. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Aiza village and mandal Jogulamba, Gadwal District, having fixed abode, with no likelihood of absconding, but apprehends arrest and custodial harassment. Petitioner is 3 ready to furnish solvent sureties and abide by any conditions imposed, and that the 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 Petitioner 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. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the Petitioner 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 Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 7. As seen from the record, Petitioner was arraigned as Accused No.1 and had not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance for grant of pre-arrest 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: 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2728 4 “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. 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 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108 5 Petitioner establish a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioner neither established a special circumstances nor extra-ordinary circumstance. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, Criminal Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 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 (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: 30.06.2026 VTS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No