APHC010446912026 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: 7427/2026 Between: 1. T NIRANJAN KUMAR, S/O T. JAGANNADHAIAH,AGED 29 YRS, OCC DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,R/O. D.NO. 3-16, DIGUVAMODALAPALLI VILLAGE,THAVANAMPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra PradeshAt Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to direct the Station House Officer, Chittoor II Town Urban Police Station, Chittoor District to release the petitioner/accused _ on bail in the event of his arrest in * connection with Cr. No. 72/2026 of Chittoor II Town Urban Police Station, Chittoor District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY 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 petitioner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.72 of 2026 of Chittoor II Town Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 318(4), 339, 340(2), 316 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Mr. D. Purna Chandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused, submits that the petitioner is the innocent of the alleged offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a Data Entry Operator had just followed the instructions of his superior officer (de-facto complainant) and gave the amount to the de-facto complainant. Therefore, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 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 was working as a Data Entry Operator and the allegation against the petitioner is that he forged the signature of the District Collector, by name, Dr.A. Sudarshan, and withdrew an amount of Rs.6,99,000/- and misappropriate the said amount. 6. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,1 wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication. 7. 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 12026 SCC Online 188 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 Panjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)3. 8. 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. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. 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 2(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 144 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7427 of 2026 Date: 08.09.2026 ANS