APHC010449492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7473/2026 Between: 1. CHAGANTI PRASSANA KUMARI ALIAS CHAGANTI BHASKARA LAKSHMI PRASANNA, D/O CH. VENKATA BALA RAJU,AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS DOB 29.12.2003,OCC SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE,R/O 25-21- 1, CHAGANTIVARI STREET,KURUPAM MARKET, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530001.PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HYDERABAD FOR EMPLOYMENT.AADHAAR NO. 9143 8814 2472MOBILE 9866789211 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,I TOWN POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KARTHIKSIDDARTHA SALADI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the 2 Petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.138 of 2026 of I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 21(1)(2)(3), 23 TBUDS, 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNS‟). 2. Sri B. Karthik Siddhartha Saladi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the Police. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be 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 pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. 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 a perusal of the record, it is evident that the Petitioner is a young woman aged 22 years. At the time of the alleged offence, she just attained 3 majority. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Application under Section 528 of the BNSS No.36256 of 2025, Parikshit Parse v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein, at paragraph No.4, it is held as follows: “4. While challenging the entire proceedings conducted by concerned Investigating Officer in shape of preferring charge-sheet along with cognizance order dated 19.04.2025, learned counsel for applicant sought the attention of Court over sections 29 and 30 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 (herein after referred to as "the Act of 2019"), which are reproduced herein below:- "29. Competent Authority to be informed of offences The police officer shall, on recording information about the commission of an offence under this Act, inform the same to the Competent Authority. 30. Investigation of offences by Central Bureau of Investigation. (1) On receipt of information under section 29 or otherwise, if the Competent Authority has reason to believe that the offence relates to a deposit scheme or deposit schemes in which- (a) the depositors, deposit takers or properties involved are located in more than one State or Union territory in India or outside India; and (b) the total value of the amount involved is of such magnitude as to significantly affect the public interest, the Competent Authority shall refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. (2) The reference made by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be with the consent of the State Government under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. (3) On the receipt of the reference under sub-section (1), the Central Government may transfer the investigation of the offence to the Central Bureau of Investigation under section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946." 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.Nos.201497 and 201498 of 2024, Srijity v. State, wherein, at paragraph No.5, it is held as under: “5. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.102888/2022 having examined Sections 7 and 27 of the BUDS Act, at paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7, has observed as follows: "5. Section 7 of the Act, specifies that appropriate government shall, by notification, appoint one or more officers not below the rank of Secretary to that government, as the competent authority for the purpose of this Act. Section 8 specifies that the appropriate government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute one or more Courts known as the Designated Courts for such area or areas to deal with 4 the matters to which the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act applies. Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under that section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator. 6. A conjoint reading of this provision indicates that the government shall first appoint a Regulator and thereafter designate a Court to deal with the matters to which the provisions of this Act apply and the Designated Court can take cognizance only on a complaint in writing made by the Regulator. 7. In the instance case, the Regulator has not filed a complaint before the Designated Court so as to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act. However, the Police have registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the registration of the FIR for the aforesaid offences is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime NO.257/2021 filed by the Chikkodi Police Station insofar it relates to accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed." 7. This Court, in Crl.P.No.6843 of 2026 on 17.08.2026 passed the following order: “A plain reading of Section 21 of the BUDS Act indicates that Sections 21(1), 21(2) and 21(3) are attracted only upon a prima facie contravention of Section 3, which prohibits unregulated deposit schemes. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to place any material to prima facie establish that the activities allegedly carried on by the petitioner or the other accused constitute an "unregulated deposit scheme" within the meaning of the Act. Further, the records do not indicate compliance with the statutory mechanism contemplated under Sections 7 and 29, particularly any action by the Competent Authority upon having reason to believe that an offence under the Act was committed. Consequently, in the absence of the foundational ingredients of Section 3 and the requisite statutory compliance, the provisions of Section 21 of the BUDS Act are not prima facie attracted.” 8. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 10.10.2022 the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department as the “Comepent Authority” and the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Andhra Pradesh as the officer to assist the Competent Authority to exercise the powers and discharge other functions as prescribed under The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Rules, 2022. 9. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, this 5 Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.4, with some stringent conditions. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of her arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall make herself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the Charge Sheet. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not leave the limits of the Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall surrender her passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If she claims that she does not have passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _______________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.09.2026 KMS 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7473 of 2026 Date: 07.09.2026 KMS