APHC010359482026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5785/2026 Between: THIPPANA MANOHAR REDDY, S/O THIPPANAN GANGI REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O D.NO. 1/125, SALABAD, ONTIMITTA,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5785 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 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, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.55 of 2026 of S.V.U.Campus Urban Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 140(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.05.2026 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused persons allegedly approached the victim in connection with a financial dispute relating to the red sanders business. After the discussion, they allegedly forcibly took the victim away from the spot. The incident was subsequently informed to the complainant by the victim’s driver, Anil. Upon enquiry, the complainant came to know that the accused persons had allegedly kidnapped and illegally confined the victim with an intention to recover money. Accordingly, the police registered the present crime for the alleged offences. 3. Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5785 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 falsely implicated in the present case arising out of a business dispute relating to real estate transactions. He contends that the allegations of kidnapping are false and that there are no ingredients to attract the alleged offences against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident, has no likelihood of absconding, and there is no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. It is also submitted that the other accused in the same crime have already been granted anticipatory bail, and the petitioner is entitled to the same relief on the ground of parity. Therefore, he prays that the petition be allowed. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still in progress and that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He contends that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged kidnapping and illegal confinement of the victim. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and to ascertain the role of the accused persons. It is further contended that, if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of him absconding 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5785 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 or interfering with the ongoing investigation. Therefore, he prays that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 8. As seen from the record, there are specific accusations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.1 by the de facto complainant/victim. The victim was allegedly abducted and kept under illegal detention from 30.05.2026 to 01.06.2026. There is CCTV footage available in support of the said allegation. It is alleged that the victim sustained grievous injuries at the hands of the petitioner and the other accused. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of effective investigation. In the present case, the weapon allegedly used for attacking the victim has also been recovered. 9. The contention of the petitioner that the de-facto complainant, who is a real estate broker, induced the petitioner/Accused No.1 and others to invest huge amounts in the real estate business is not a ground for 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5785 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 consideration at the stage of deciding the petition for pre-arrest bail. The fact that the learned Special Judge granted pre-arrest bail to Accused Nos.2 and 4 vide orders dated 01.07.2026 and 02.07.2026 in Crl.M.P.Nos.175 and 176 of 2026, respectively, does not entitle the petitioner to the same relief, as the allegations and overt acts attributed against the petitioner are specific and well-founded in nature. 10. The further contention of the petitioner that all the other accused, except the petitioner, have been enlarged on regular bail by the learned Trial Court is also not a ground for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, having regard to the specific role attributed to him in the alleged offences. 11. 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, protection or licence to the petitioner in respect of the specific allegations levelled against him, 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. 12. 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. 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5785 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. 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: 05.08.2026 RSI 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5785 of 2026 Dated 05.08.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5785 of 2026 Date: 05.08.2026 RSI