APHC010175032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2547/2026 Between: 1. MANUKONDA MARY JOTHSNA, W/O. GANESH,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O.H.NO. 12-18-1/68,CHINTHLA PUDI VAI STREET, 7TH WARD, REPALLE,GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by SHO, Ponnur Town, Guntur District.,Rep. by its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...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 Courtpleased to direct release of the Petitioner on Bail in the event of her arrest in connection with FIR.No.37 of 2026 on the file of the Ponnur Town Police Station, Guntur District., 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 pleased to grant interim pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner in connection with FIR.No.37 of 2026 on the file of the Ponnur Town Police Station, Guntur District., pending CRLP.No. of 2026 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 2 1. S DILIP JAYA RAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2547/2026 ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.37 of 2026 on the file of Ponnur Town Police Station, Guntur District for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Sri S.Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and is falsely implicated with an ulterior motive without there being any incriminating material against her. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is no way concerned with the self-help groups in any aspect, including the allegation of obtaining loans as alleged in the report. Learned counsel further contends that the loan was sanctioned in favour of the SHG, the loan amount was disbursed to their own accounts and that the groups are not in existence. As such, the allegation of forging and withdrawal of the amounts by the Petitioner does not arise. There is no entrustment of any property to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is Community Organizer. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that, vide order dated 16.03.2026 in Crl.P. No.1751 of 2026, this Court granted protection to Accused No. 2 in a similar case and directed the police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 4 and submits that the same protection may be extended to the present Petitioner also. 3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that the investigation is at nascent stage and money trail is yet to be unearthed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, the fact remains that no specific allegations are made against the present petitioner; they are only omnibus allegations that she has also played a part in the conspiracy. This is not the stage to decide the culpability by accepting the allegations. Be that as it may, the investigation is not completed and is at a nascent stage, what is the role of the petitioner and her complicity is also not established by this date. In that view, taking into consideration the facts of the case, and that she has no criminal antecedents, it is apposite to dispose of the petition with the following: a. Investigating Officer is at liberty to complete the investigation, in accordance with law. b. In the event of any coercive action sought to be taken against the Petitioner, concerned Police Authorities are directed to scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of BNSS and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 5 Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, which is reiterated in in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another2. c. The petitioner shall surrender her passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If she claims that she does not have a passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the concerned Court. d. The petitioner shall not leave the country without express permission from the concerned Court. e. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any prosecution witnesses and cooperate in all means for the purpose of investigation. f. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with further investigation, if any and shall provide any information or material documents for the purpose of investigation. g. This protection will be continued to the petitioner subject to her conduct and cooperation to the investigation failing which, the prosecution is at liberty to take appropriate steps. h. If any incriminating material is found against the Petitioner and if custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary, the 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 2 2026 INSC 115 6 Investigating Officer is at liberty to obtain necessary permission from the jurisdictional Court and proceed in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 16.04.2026 UPS 7 58 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2547 OF 2026 Dt: 16.04.2026 UPS