APHC010269402026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4285/2026 Between: 1. KALLAM NAGI REDDY, , S/O. VENKATESWARA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-14-422, SHYAMALANGAR,GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P. 2. KALLAM SRINIVASA REDDY, , S/O VEERA FREDDY,AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-14-117/62,3 LINE EXTENSION, SHYMALA NAGAR,GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 3. POLURI SAMBI REDDY, , S/O RAMI REDDY,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SYAMALANAGAR, GUNTUR TOWN,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. POLURI PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY, , S/O SAMBI REDDY,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 505, KRISAL APARTMENTSYAMALA NAGAR, GUNTUR TOWN,GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.- ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Rep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh.Through Sattenapalli Rural Police Station,Sattenapalli, Palnadu District, A.P. ...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 Courtleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 5 on Bail in the event of their arrest in F.I.R. No. 39 of 2026 on the Dr.YLR,J Crl.P No.4285 of 2026 2 file of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station, Palnadu District, by way of granting Anticipatory Bail, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 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 For the reasons stated in the accompanying Anticipatory Bail Petition, it is therefore prayed that pending disposal of the main Anticipatory Bail Petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent/Police not to arrest the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 5 in F.I.R. No. 39 of 2026 on the file of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station, Palnadu District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Dr.YLR,J Crl.P No.4285 of 2026 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Criminal Petition No:4285 of 2026 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.2 to 5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.39 of 2026 of Rajahmundry III Town Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 318 (4) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.04.2026, a complaint was lodged alleging that the accused, being the Director and Supplier of Kallam Brother Cotton Private Limited, availed credit facilities from the bank comprising Cash Credit of Rs.25,00,00,000/- and a Term Loan of Rs.8,63,55,019/-, totaling Rs.33,63,55,019/-, for business purposes. The facilities were secured by hypothecation of stock and book debts, mortgage of immovable properties, and personal guarantees furnished by the accused. It is alleged that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, dishonestly diverted and mis-utilized the loan funds for purposes other than for which those were sanctioned. Financial scrutiny revealed a mismatch between receipts and payments amounting to Rs.2,488.95 lakhs, manipulation of statements submitted to different banks, abnormal Dr.YLR,J Crl.P No.4285 of 2026 4 transactions, and suppression of records by not furnishing documents for forensic audit. The account was classified as NPA on 18.07.2024 and subsequently reported as fraud as per RBI guidelines, resulting in wrongful loss of Rs.40,54,50,427/- to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused. 3. Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the police. The offences committed by the accused are punishable under seven years. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel urges that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the Dr.YLR,J Crl.P No.4285 of 2026 5 process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard Mr. K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the petitioners is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years and the Investigation Officer is duty bound to follow 41(A) of Cr.P.C./35(3) of BNSS. 7. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:- 11.Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction: a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’); 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P No.4285 of 2026 6 b)All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention; e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; f) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction. h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. 12.We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. Dr.YLR,J Crl.P No.4285 of 2026 7 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi) 3 categorically held that anticipatory bail can be granted, if there is apprehension of arrest of the accused. However, in the instant case, there is no apprehension of arrest as the allegations leveled against the accused are punishable below seven (07) years, for which the Investigating Officer is duty bound to follow 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’/41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ scrupulously and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:23.06.2026 Ksj 2(1980) 2 SCC 565 3(2020) 5 SCC 1 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P No.4285 of 2026 8 141 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Criminal Petition No:4285 of 2026 23rd June, 2026 Ksj