Kandukuri Srinivasulu & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of pre-arrest Bail. The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A6 in Crime No.70 of 2025 of Dagadarthi Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, which was registered with the allegation of committing the offences under Sections 316(5), 318(2), 351(3), 61(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioners pray for directions to release on Bail, in the event of arrest.

Heard both sides.

Point for determination:

Whether the petitioners/A1 to A6 are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 482 of BNSS? If so, on what terms?

POINT:

The allegations against the petitioners, in brief, are that prior to 16.06.2025, at Ulavapalla Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, A.1 to A.6 induced the defacto complainant to invest money by making attractive promises of lucrative returns. Believing their representations and reposing trust in them, the defacto complainant allegedly paid an amount of Rs.3.00 crores through various bank accounts furnished by the accused. However, instead of investing the said amount, the accused are alleged to have misappropriated the same for their personal use, thereby committing criminal breach of trust and cheating. It is further alleged that the petitioners/accused unlawfully mortgaged the agricultural land belonging to the defacto complainant in their own names and asserted ownership over the same. When the defacto complainant and the mediators questioned their acts, the accused allegedly threatened them with dire consequences, including threats to their lives. Hence, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dispute arises out of certain business transactions between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioners are law-abiding citizens, are available for the purpose of investigation, and are ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Agency. Learned counsel would also contend that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and is the subject matter of O.S. No.91 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Nellore, wherein the defacto complainant has been arrayed as defendant No.1. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2/A.2 is the wife of A.3, while the other petitioners/A.4 to A.6 are their relatives, and that they have no role whatsoever in the alleged business transactions. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with the present crime and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, they are entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.P. No.8404 of 2025, wherein they were directed to approach the Court having jurisdiction. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, in Crl.M.P. No.292 of 2026. However, by order dated 21.04.2026, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present Criminal Petition has been filed seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that A.1 is the kingpin and the allegations disclose commission of serious offences involving criminal breach of trust and cheating. He would further submit that the investigation is still at a crucial stage and that grant of pre- arrest bail to the petitioners is likely to hamper the course of investigation and may adversely affect the collection of evidence. Therefore, according to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

Sri Yeshwanth Gade, learned counsel appearing through virtual mode for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, would submit that the material on record clearly discloses entrustment of the amount to the accused and the subsequent breach of such trust. He would, therefore, vehemently oppose the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

It is evident from the material enclosed that civil disputes between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are already pending in O.S. No.91 of 2025 and O.S. No.14 of 2025. Except contending that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary for completion of the investigation, no substantial grounds have been placed before this Court to justify denial of the relief of anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.2 to 6 (A.2 to A.6).

Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the respective accused, this Court is of the view that the prayer of petitioner Nos.2 to 6 (A.2 to A.6) for grant of pre-arrest bail deserves consideration. However, in so far as petitioner No.1 (A.1), who is alleged to be the principal accused, this Court is not inclined to extend the said relief.

Accordingly, upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court finds the request of petitioner Nos.2 to 6 (A.2 to A.6) for grant of anticipatory bail to be acceptable, whereas the prayer of petitioner No.1 (A.1) for the said relief does not merit consideration.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed, on the following conditions:

The petitioners/A2 to A6 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.70 of 2025 of Dagadarthi Police Station, which was registered with the allegation of committing offences under Sections 316(5), 318(2), 351(3), 61(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), on the condition of Petitioners/A2 to A6 executing bail bonds for Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the S.H.O., Dagadarthi Police Station;

The petitioners/A2 to A6 and their sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned police and keep the Police informed about the change in address, if any, time to time.

The petitioners are at liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional Court within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of this order. Upon such appearance and execution of the bonds referred to above, they shall be enlarged on bail in connection with the present crime.

The petitioners/A2 to A.6 shall co-operate with the investigation agency, by furnishing necessary and legally permissible information and they shall not interfere with the investigation process like contacting or influencing the witnesses etc.

The petitioners/A1 to A.6 shall not leave India, without permission of the concerned Court.

The application in respect of the petitioner/A.1 is dismissed.