N Chinna Bavaji vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by one N. Chinna Bavaji, who is arrayed as an suspect accused in Crime No.58 of 2025 of Chitvel Police Station, Annamayya District, which was registered with the allegations of committing offences punishable under Sections 143(1), 143(2), 143(3), 336, and 318 of the BNS Act, 2023, Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, and Section 12 of the Passport Act.

While denying the allegations made against him, the petitioner/accused prays for grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that, except the alleged confession of Accused No.1, there is no other material or basis for adding him as accused in the present case.

Heard both sides.

Point for determination:

Whether the petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 482 of BNSS? If so, on what terms?

Point:

Case of Prosecution:-

The informant one Kambham Tulasamma gave a report to the police stating that her aunt, Venkatamma, was working in Kuwait and had asked her to work as a servant maid in the same house. Where upon, the informant obtained a passport and a visa was arranged for her. She worked in Kuwait for about four years and came back to India on account of ill-health of her mother. Her aunt Venkatamma also returned to India. Subsequently, the informant again went to Kuwait and stayed there for six months, and later went to Qatar, where she worked for two years.

b) In the year 2023, after returning to India, she came into contact with one Kasturi, through her got acquaintance with one N. Moula Saheb (Accused No.1), who collected her passport under the pretext of arranging a work visa at Kuwait. However, instead of securing a valid work visa, a tourist visa was fraudulently arranged. The "Protection of Emigrants" (PoE) certificate obtained in that context was found to be fake, due to which immigration authorities objected and sent her back. Again, upon payment of additional amounts, another attempt was made, but that certificate too was found to be fake, and the immigration authorities sent her back.

c) The informant alleged that, instead of providing a working/employment visa, a tourist visa was arranged. Thus, she suffered in the hands of accused. Further, it is alleged that the flight ticket for her travel was booked using the e-mail ID of the petitioner herein, who is the son of Accused No.1. Based on these allegations, the petitioner, Accused No.1, and others are added in the present case.

Case of Petitioner:-

6) (i) Petitioner is innocent and he is added in present crime solely based on the inadmissible confession of Accused No.1. There is no other independent or corroborative material to justify his involvement.

(ii) The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that he is innocent and has no role in the alleged offence. He is ready and willing to furnish sureties, and his father, who is Accused No.1 in the case, has already been arrested and released on bail. Petitioner is having permanent residence and passport also.

(i) The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which pertains to human trafficking, is a grave and serious offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to ten years. It is further submitted that all other offences for which the case has been registered are punishable with imprisonment for a term up to seven years. The learned APP contended that the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail, in view of the gravity of the offence and the incriminating material stating against the petitioner, including the use of his e-mail ID.

(ii). It is further submitted that the case is still under investigation and that five witnesses are examined so far.

As per the contents of the FIR, the de-facto complainant intended to seek employment in Kuwait, and arrangements were made accordingly. The allegations in the complaint primarily pertain to irregularities in arranging the visa, inducing and cheating the informant under the guise of arranging employment visa.

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case the nature and depth of the allegations, the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail found convincing.

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

i) Petitioner/Accused is directed to appear before the concerned Station House Officer within fifteen (15) days and on such appearance/surrender or arrest, he is entitled for release on bail, in respect of Crime No.58 of 2025 on the file of Chitvel Police Station, Annamayya District, which was registered with the allegation of committing offences under Sections 143(1), 143(2), 143(3), 336, and 318 of the BNS Act, 2023, Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, and Section 12 of the Passport Act, on the condition of the petitioner/Accused executing bail bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the S.H.O., Chitvel Police Station.

ii) The petitioner/Accused and his 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.

iii) For the purpose of expediting the investigation process, the Petitioner/Accused is directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O., after release on bail on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m for a period of eight (06) weeks or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.

iv) The petitioner/Accused shall c-operate with the investigation agency, by furnishing necessary and legally permissible information and he shall not interfere with the investigation process like contacting or influencing the witnesses etc.

v) Petitioner shall furnish a copy of his passport to the concerned police and they are at liberty to inform the passport authority about the pendency of the case against the petitioner, if necessary, for taking appropriate action in terms of Passport Act, 1967 against the petitioner.

vi) The petitioner/Accused shall not leave India, without permission of the concerned Court.