APHC010392192026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6383/2026 Between: 1. DADI NARENDRA BABU, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,R/O D.N0.1-17/B, BUDAMPADU POST AND VILLAGEGUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Station House Officer, Nallapadu P.S., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RATAN MOHAN MEDIDA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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.9, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.1321 of 2026 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District, registered 2 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 115(2), 351(2) r/w.3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’) and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). 2. Mr.Ratan Mohan Medida, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. It is further submitted that Accused No.1 lodged a complaint alleging rape against Accused No.9 on 10.07.2026, registered as FIR No.214 of 2026 at Lalapet Police Station, Guntur District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 318(4), 303(2), 336(3), and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of ‘the BNS’. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.9 is that he received amounts collected by Accused No.1 through the bank. Statements of bank accounts have been filed. It is also submitted that Accused No.1 was granted relief under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’ by the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, vide order dated 05.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.107 of 2026 in Cr.No.1321 of 2025 of Nallapadu Police Station, and similar relief was granted to other accused in Crl.M.P.No.106 of 2026. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. He brings to 3 the notice of this Court the observations of the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, in Crl.M.P.No.963 of 2026 in Cr.No.1321 of 2025 dated 09.07.2026, wherein it was noted that Accused No.9 received money from Accused No.1, which was transferred into his account. The learned Principal District Judge also observed that there is a prima facie allegation against Accused No.9 for cheating and collection of deposits, which violates the provisions of ‘the Act’. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, vide orders dated 05.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.Nos.106 & 107 of 2026, granted relief under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’ to other accused. The Accused No.1 lodged a complaint against the Petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 318(4), 303(2), 336(3), and 351(2) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’. As per the averments in Cr.No.214 of 2026 of Lalapeta Police Station, the allegation against the Petitioner is that he received amounts collected by Accused No.1 from the de-facto complainant, totaling Rs.1,24,37,000. The provisions of ‘the Act’ squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. The Petitioner is not entitled to relief under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’. It is also noted that a Criminal Petition for quashment of proceedings was filed jointly by Accused Nos.1 and 9, which is still pending vide Crl.P.No.221 of 2026. 4 6. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the Petitioner, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.08.2026 PRA 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 109 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6383 of 2026 17.08.2026 PRA