APHC010452132026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7525/2026 Between: NADAKUDITI NAGA RAJU, S/O NADAKUDITI SAYULU,MALE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AS POST MAN,OFFICE OF SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE,DELHI EAST DISVISION, KRISHNA NAGAR HO,NEW DELHI- 110051. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, Nagaram Town Police Station,Bapatla District,Represented by P.P. High court of A.P at Amaravti. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: PERIKALA PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 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.3, for granting pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.111 of 2024 of Nagaram Police Station, Bapatla District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) & 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’). 2. Mr. Perikala Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, has a fixed abode and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and will not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Hence, it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohit, 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 pre-arrest 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 that the petition be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.3 was a Central Government Employee and was working as a Postman at Chandolu at relevant point of time. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner/Accused No.3 misappropriated an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Accused No.1 is the brother-in-law of Accused No.3. 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 against whom specific and serious allegations have been made, 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/Accused No.3. 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: 08.09.2026 ANS 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 172 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7525 of 2026 Date: 08.09.2026 ANS