SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(AP) 115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.
Muppidi Suseela – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent 
Criminal Petition Nos: 13361 and 13478 of 2025
Decided On : 02-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N NSomendra Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

The court denied pre-arrest bail based on established prima facie evidence of impersonation and extortion, emphasizing the need to maintain investigative integrity and considering the petitioners' criminal antecedents.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 319(2), 308(5) and 3(5) - Pre-arrest bail plea - Accused charged with impersonating police officers and extorting money; no grant of bail as allegations prima facie established - Importance of custodial interrogation and investigation progress emphasized, citing adverse antecedents of accused. (Paras 11, 20)

(B) Crime - Impersonation and extortion - Criminal Charges of common intention established through eyewitness accounts - Delay in lodging FIR not sufficient for bail consideration. (Paras 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that on 01.12.2025, he was wrongfully restrained, threatened, and extorted by individuals impersonating police officers while transporting rice. Petitioners claimed baseless allegations and a risk of undue hardship to their families if arrested.

Findings of Court:
The petitioners were not entitled to pre-arrest bail due to serious allegations, necessity for identification through Test Identification Parade, and existing criminal antecedents which warrant further inquiry.

Issues: Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the gravity of allegations, including extortion and impersonation, alongside eyewitness accounts, precludes the grant of pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the integrity of the ongoing investigation must be protected.

Result: Criminal Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek pre-arrest bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners' arguments against arrest. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court considers the prosecution case. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. court analysis on pre-arrest bail. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. court dismisses the petitions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

ORDER :

Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.

These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same crime, albeit the petitioners are different.

2. The Criminal Petition No.13361 of 2025 has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNS S ') by the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and Crl.P.No.13478 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.7 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.175 of 2025 in Penugonda Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 126 (2), 319(2) and 308(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity of 'the ').

3. Provenance of the case of prosecution is the complainant, Mallampalli Kishore, S/o Koteswara Rao, stated that he was working as a driver on lorry bearing Registration No. AP-16-TY-4712, belonging to Gottapu Ramesh of Pamarru Village. On 30.11.2025 at about 10:00 p.m., he started from Pamarru with a load of rice and proceeded towards Peddapuram.While proceeding on his journey, on 01.12.2025 at about 1:00 a.m., when he reached Siddantham Road turning at Penugonda Village, two persons came in a car bearing Registration No. AP-39-KK-9949, wrongfully restrained his lorry, and claimed that they were police officers. They informed him that ganja was being transported in the lorry and forcibly made him open the rear door and checked the vehicle. Though nothing incriminating was found and the complainant informed them that the load was rice, they did not heed. Thereafter, they made phone calls to others, pursuant to which another car bearing Registration No. AP-37-TX-1111 arrived carrying four persons, including one woman. All the accused acted in a rude and violent manner, assaulted the complainant, and threatened him with dire consequences, including foisting a false ganja case and seizing the lorry. They demanded Rs.2,00,000/-. Upon the complainant informing the owner of the vehicle, the accused extorted Rs.60,000/- and Rs.15,000/- through PhonePe to mobile number 9493991333. Subsequently, the complainant came to know the names of the accused as Udatala Chandrasekhar (Velpuru), Jakkamsetti Srinivasa Rao (Achanta Vemavaram), Muppidi Suseela (Apparaopeta, Tadepalligudem), Anil (Nidadavole), Prasad and Baburao (DBR News, Tanuku). Basing on the report, dated 04.12.2025 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police Station, registered the FIR, which is under investigation.

4. Sri N.N. Somendra Reddy, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.7 submit that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinner of their family and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the Petitioners. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners.

5. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition.

6. Ms. P.Akhila Naidu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top