Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010306602026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4852/2026 Between: 1. SMT CHALLAMEGHANA, ,W/O. CHALLA NARESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.R/O. FF6-AKANSHITA TOWERS,JOJI NAGAR, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. 2. SMT SUDHA RANI, , W/O. KISHORE,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,R/O. FF6- AKANSHITA TOWERS,JOJI NAGAR, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by itsPublic Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. V V N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4852 of 2026 Dated 06.07.2026 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.181 of 2026 of Bhavanipuram Police Station, NTR District registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(4) and 308(5) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution case is that on 23.04.2026 at about 3:30 p.m., the accused criminally trespassed into the de facto complainant's house on the pretext of asking for water and wrongfully confined the complainant, her husband, and their relative. The accused allegedly impersonated police, Human Rights members, and media personnel, threatened to falsely implicate and defame them, and demanded Rs.1,50,000/- by putting them in fear of death and grievous hurt. It is further alleged that the accused forcibly took the complainant's husband, pledged his gold chain, withdrew cash from an ATM, and compelled the victims to sign blank papers and record a video. It is due to fear and ill health, the complaint was lodged on 26.04.2026. 4. Mr. V.V.N.Narasimham, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to a monetary dispute, as the de-facto complainant lodged the complaint to avoid 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4852 of 2026 Dated 06.07.2026 repayment of the amounts allegedly borrowed from the Petitioners. It is submitted that the complaint is an afterthought, suffers from unexplained delay, and contains only omnibus allegations without attributing any specific overt acts to the Petitioners. The investigation has been completed, and therefore, their custodial interrogation is no longer necessary. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are permanent residents, have no criminal antecedents, and are willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. The learned Counsel also points out that one of the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by the competent Court and urged to allow the pre-arrest bail. 5. Per contra, Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4852 of 2026 Dated 06.07.2026 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 9. As seen from the record, the petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2. Two similar adverse antecedents are reported against them. The petitioners are sisters. Accused No.3 has already been enlarged on regular bail by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. Specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Their custodial interrogation is stated to be necessary for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- allegedly extorted by them. The allegations disclose acts of criminal trespass and extortion committed by putting the victims in fear of death or grievous hurt in furtherance of their common intention. The petitioners and the other accused are stated to be close associates. The de facto complainant has also attributed a specific motive against the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners confined L.Ws.1 to 3 and another person in their house, threatened them by claiming that they belonged to the NHRC and the press, and warned that they would ruin their lives by telecasting false allegations against them, thereby extorting Rs.1,50,000/-. It is further stated that some more witnesses are yet to be examined and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. At this stage, there is every possibility of the petitioners inducing or influencing the witnesses and 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4852 of 2026 Dated 06.07.2026 thereby hampering the investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in lodging the FIR cannot, by itself, be viewed with suspicion. In view of the specific allegations and overt acts attributed to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as it would amount to granting protection or shield to the persons against whom specific allegations are levelled, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 06.07.2026 KMS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4852 of 2026 Dated 06.07.2026 189 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4852/2026 Date: 06.07.2026 KMS