APHC010345862026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5557/2026 Between: 1. APPALA SEETHARAMAIAH ALIAS SITARAMAIAH, S/O. NAGENDRA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS, D.NO. 8-176, GANAPAVARAM ROAD,KARLAPALEM, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522111. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KISHORE KUMAR KATARI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.17 of 2026 of Kakumanu Police Station, Guntur District registered for the 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5557 of 2026 Dated 17.07.2026 alleged offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution case is that, prior to 20.02.2026, the accused induced the de-facto complainant, who is engaged in agriculture and paddy business, to supply 15 loads of paddy comprising about 4,649 bags worth approximately Rs.84,00,000/-. The complainant procured the paddy from various farmers and supplied it to the accused. It is alleged that the accused intentionally failed to pay the sale consideration despite repeated demands. When questioned, the accused allegedly threatened the complainant with dire consequences. 4. Mr. Kishore Kumar Katari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.4 submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present crime solely on the basis of the alleged confession statements of the co- accused and that no specific overt acts are attributed to him either in the complaint or during the investigation. It is contended that the dispute arises out of a commercial transaction relating to the supply of paddy and alleged non-payment of money, which is essentially civil in nature. The Petitioner is stated to have neither received any amount nor participated in the alleged transaction, and no independent material connects him with the offence. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, as the case is based on documentary evidence, and that the Petitioner has already 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5557 of 2026 Dated 17.07.2026 exhausted the remedy before the Sessions Court. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the business of Accused No.1. He is only the paternal uncle of Accused No.1 and is aged about 64 years. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted to the Petitioner. 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. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is not merely the paternal uncle of Accused No.1 but is also his business partner. It is contended that Accused No.1, in his statement, disclosed that he had delivered the 4,649 bags of paddy, which had been procured by the de facto complainant from various farmers, to the Petitioner/Accused No.4. It is, therefore, submitted that the accusation against the Petitioner is well founded 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5557 of 2026 Dated 17.07.2026 and that his custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair and effective 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. 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 Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 9. As seen from the record, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have been arrested and enlarged on regular bail by the learned Trial Court. The prosecution alleges that Accused No.1 delivered 4,649 bags of paddy to Accused No.4. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 procured the said paddy from the de-facto complainant but failed to pay the agreed sale consideration of Rs.84,00,000/-. The de-facto complainant, in turn, had procured the paddy from several farmers and supplied the same to Accused No.1. The statements of certain eyewitnesses have also been recorded in the course of the investigation. The prosecution contends that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is necessary for the purpose of recovery of the 4,649 bags of paddy and to ascertain his role in the alleged offence. Thus, specific overt acts are attributed to the Petitioner/Accused No.4. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5557 of 2026 Dated 17.07.2026 of Punjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, this Court is not inclined to enlarge him on pre-arrest bail, as custodial interrogation is required to elicit further facts and circumstances of the case to collect evidence for effective completion of the investigation. Hence, the request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.07.2026 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.5557 of 2026 Dated 17.07.2026 47 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5557/2026 Date: 17.07.2026 KMS