Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 01.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010316412026 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 NO: 5057/2026 Between: RAVILLA SUJATHA, W/O VEERA RAGHAVULU NAIDU LATE,D/O JAYARAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFER/O. LM KANDRIGA, PADIREDU ARANYAM, VADAMALAPETA,CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN CODE-517551. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court at Amaravathi for the State of AP-522238 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5057 of 2026 Dated 01.07.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: This 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, seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.101 of 2026 of Tirupati East Urban Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under 61(2), 305(a), 318(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. On perusal of the record, the Petitioner without approaching the learned Sessions 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 Kerala1 and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others2. 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 1 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5057 of 2026 Dated 01.07.2026 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 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 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5057 of 2026 Dated 01.07.2026 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. Further, the Accused Nos.2 and 3 have approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.3264 of 2026, and a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.04.2026, dismissed the said bail application while directing the Investigating Officer to follow the mandate of Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’/41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’, since the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. There is no imminent threat of arrest to the petitioner, as the Investigating Officer is duty-bound to comply with the provisions of Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’/41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 3 , Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand4 and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation5. 8. With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of requiring the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’/41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in 3(2014) 8 SCC 273 4(2023) 8 SCC 632 5 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5057 of 2026 Dated 01.07.2026 the cases of Satender Kumar Antil, Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. If it is noticed in the course of investigation that the Petitioner has committed any offence which is punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the investigating officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 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 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5057 of 2026 Dated 01.07.2026 161 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5057 of 2026 01.07.2026 RSI