Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 01.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010315292026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 5047 and 5048 of 2026 1.CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5047/2026 Between: 1. B DAMODARAM, S/O MUNIRATNAM,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,R/O NALLAMGADU VILLAGE, THUMBAKUPPAM POST,BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT- 517416. 2. S ROSHAN, S/O ADAM,AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,R/O MOGILI VENKATAGIRI VILLAGE POST,BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517429. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by SHO, Yerpedu UPS Police Station,Through Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravati, Guntur District- 522 238. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5048/2026 Between: P VENKATARAMANA, S/O P. SRIRAMULU,AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,R/O D.NO.3-10, SRINIVASAMANGAPURAM,CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, MITTAPALEM,TIRUPATI DISTRICT- 517102. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by SHO, Yerpedu UPS Police Station,Through Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravati, Guntur District- 522 238. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the petitioners in the two petitions are different, but the crime registered against them is one and the same. 2. These two Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime 3 No.96 of 2026 of Yerpedu Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 308(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. On perusal of the record, the Petitioners without approaching the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance seeking pre-arrest bail and have 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 Kerala1 and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others2. 5. 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. 1 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 4 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.” 6. 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 directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant- complainant as a party." 7. 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners, as they have not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. 5 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, these two Criminal Petitions are dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to approach the learned Sessions Judge by filing an application seeking grant of pre-arrest bail. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 01.07.2026 RSI Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable 6 157 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 5047 and 5048 of 2026 01.07.2026 RSI