APHC010328432026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 5252 and 6891 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 5252 of 2026 Between: 1. YENDURI ASHOK CHAKRAVARTHI, S/O.SATYANARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O. FLAT NO.503, SWARNA BHARATH ENCLAVE, 3 LINNE,KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR. 2. MANUKONDA UDAY BHASKAR, S/O.VEERA VASANTHA RAO,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O.FLAT NO.3B, PIONEER GARDENIA, 2 LINE,NALANDA NAGAR, GUNTUR. 3. KURRA SRIDHAR, S/O.SRINIVASA RAO,,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O.DOOR NO.2-4, LACHANNAGUDIPUDI, GUNTUR. 4. YANAMADALA NAGARAJU, S/O.SANKARA RAOAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O.YAMURRU, VATTICHERUKURU, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,A.P. HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI. 2. LAMBADI SHANMUKHASOM, S/O. RAMNAIK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ADDRESS. CAPITAL WAY ONE APARTMENT, FLAT NO.301, SAINATH COLONY 2ND FLOOR, INNER RING ROAD PHASE - 1, GORANTAL, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522304. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE 2 COURT'S ORDER DATED 17.07.2026 IN CRL.P.NO.5252 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P V N KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6891/2026 Between: 1. YEDUPATI ABHILASH, S/O YEDUPATI MALYADRI, AGE 32 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS, R/O YAGANTI PARKWOOD APARTMENTS,12TH LANE, SRIRAM NAGAR, GORANTLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2. LAMBADI SHANMUKHASOM, S/O RAMNAIK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.ADDRESS CAPITAL WAY ONE APARTMENT, FLAT NO 301,SAINATH COLONY, 2RID FLOOR INNER RING ROAD PHASE- 1,GORANTAL GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT 522304. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU 3 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the Petitioners in the two petitions are different, but the crime registered against them is one and the same. 2. The Criminal Petition Nos.5252 and 6891 of 2026 have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.568 of 2025 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Pattabhipuram, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 308(5), 115(2) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 3. Sri P.V. Kiran Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 and 7, submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the investigation has been completed and only filing of the charge sheet is pending. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Since the investigation is completed, there is no likelihood of the Petitioners tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The Petitioners are law-abiding citizens having fixed abode and sufficient movable and immovable properties, and are ready to furnish sureties. They undertake to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the Police as and when required, and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled to 4 the concession of pre-arrest bail. Hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Sri V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1, submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated due to disputes between the Petitioner's father and the de-facto complainant, who are partners in a firm, and that the allegations are motivated by personal grudge and police influence. He contends that the investigation is unfair and tainted, that material evidence including CCTV footage has been suppressed, and that the allegations do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. He further submits that the police are attempting to arrest the Petitioner despite the absence of credible material against him. The Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, has a fixed place of abode, and is ready to furnish sureties and cooperate with the investigation. It is also submitted that this Court has already granted interim protection to similarly placed co-accused, which constitutes a change in circumstances. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail. Hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Petition. 5. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7, submitting that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is further urged that if the Petitioners is granted anticipatory bail, there is a strong likelihood of their absconding, evading the process of law. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petitions. 5 6. Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 and submits that the investigation is still in progress and that several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is further contended that, in the event the Petitioners are granted anticipatory bail at this stage, there is a strong possibility of their absconding, which may adversely affect the ongoing investigation and enable them to evade the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petitions. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 8. On perusal of the record, it is evident that Accused No.1 has filed the present pre-arrest bail application for the third time. Earlier, this Court dismissed Crl.P.No.1333 of 2026 on 03.03.2026 and Crl.P.No.2408 of 2026 on 16.04.2026 on merits. Further, Crl.P.No.1971 of 2026, filed by Accused Nos.2 to 4 and 7, was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.03.2026. 9. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu1, wherein at para No.6 it is held as under: “6…As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (Respondent 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.” 1 (2021) 16 SCC 725 6 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu supra held that the successive anticipatory bail applications should ordinarily not be entertained, especially when the case diary and status report show that the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. After an anticipatory bail application has been rejected by a reasoned (speaking) order, the accused cannot repeatedly seek anticipatory bail on the mere pretext of a change in circumstances, particularly before the same Judge. 11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1 contended that Accused No.1 had submitted a complaint to Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Guntur on 22.01.2026 that, though Crime No.568 of 2025 was registered against unknown persons, during investigation he informed the police that the de-facto complainant, Lambadi Shanmukha Som, along with Ashok and one Narayanaswamy, CI of Peddakakani Police Station, were behind the incident and had arranged persons who impersonated narcotics officials to wrongfully confine and extort money from him. He claims to have identified some of the persons involved through CCTV footage and furnished their particulars to the Investigating Officer. According to the petitioner, the Pattabhipuram Police failed to take action and are conducting a biased investigation to shield the real culprits, necessitating an independent investigation. 12. Indeed, as seen from the record, Accused Nos.5 and 6 were arrested. The prosecution alleges that Accused Nos.5 and 6 entered into a criminal conspiracy to extort money from the de-facto complainant, a pediatrician, by 7 impersonating narcotics police personnel. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, they allegedly abducted, wrongfully confined, assaulted, and threatened the complainant at various locations. It is further alleged that the accused demanded Rs.50 lakhs and employed intimidation and coercive tactics to extract money from him. 13. There are specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioners. It is alleged that they kidnapped the victim by posing themselves as narcotics police officers and extracted an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The de-facto complainant has explained the delay in lodging the complaint in the additional material placed on record. Though the alleged incident occurred on 05.12.2025 and the FIR came to be registered on 24.12.2025, resulting in a delay of nearly nineteen days, an explanation has been offered for the said delay. It has to be remembered that the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners is neither a licence for the commission of serious offences nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)3. There are no merits in the Criminal Petitions. Hence, the Criminal Petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, this Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.09.2026 KMS 2 (1980) 2 SCC 565 3 (2020) 5 SCC 1 8 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 5252 and 6891 of 2026 Date: 16.09.2026 KMS