Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13182
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Kakarla Narayanareddy @ Pedda Narayana – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No: 8673/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G Venkata Reddy
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
The definition of extortion requires both inducing fear and actual property delivery, impacting the decision on pre-arrest bail.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 132, 115(2), 296(b), 308(5), 351(2) - Pre-arrest bail sought in connection with an alleged assault of a public servant and extortion of property - Allegations include physical abuse and forceful taking of a mobile phone- Court emphasized no offense established without delivery of property as per established legal principles on extortion. (Paras 4-8)
(B) Extortion - Definition and requisite elements - Including intentional fear induced for the delivery of property as an essential part of the offense - Cases cited underscore requirement of actual property delivery to constitute extortion as outlined under the IPC and corresponding sections of the BNSS. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner allegedly threatened and assaulted a public servant related to an agriculture income certificate, culminating in a forceful seizure of his mobile phone which was later returned through intervention.
Findings of Court:
The allegations raise debatable points regarding the application of extortion laws, prompting the court to grant pre-arrest bail considering not just the offense, but also the need for thorough investigation.
Issues: Whether extortion is established given the absence of property delivery following the threat posed by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the definition of extortion necessitates both the element of threat and actual transfer of property, thus questioning the merits of the accusations against the petitioner.
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed with conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of assault and extortion against the accused. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties for and against bail. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial observations on the nature of allegations and extortion law. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. decision to grant bail based on analysis of allegations. (Para 10) |
| 5. conditions for granting pre-arrest bail. (Para 11) |
ORDER
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS S ’) by the Petitioner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.102 of 2025 of Bandlamotu Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 132 , 115(2), 296(b), 308(5),, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS ’).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.08.2025 at about 5:00 PM at Remidicherla Village, Bollapalli Mandal, the complainant Gandham Arun Reddy, VRO of the village, was abused, threatened, and assaulted by Kakarla Narayana Reddy. Earlier, on 01.08.2025, the accused had used abusive language over the phone regarding an agriculture income certificate applied in his wife’s name, and the call was recorded. On 03.08.2025, the accused confronted the complainant, slapped him, grabbed him by the neck, threatened to kill him, and forcibly took away his mobile phone to destroy the audio evidence. The phone was returned the next day through the intervention of elders. The complainant reported the matter to the police, alleging abuse, threats, obstruction of duty, and extortion by the accused.
3. Sri G. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning members of his family and, he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, 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. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner is that he allegedly used criminal force against a public servant and forcibly took away the mobile phone from him. However, after the intervention of one B. Venkateswara Reddy, the petitioner returned the mobile phone to the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhananjay Alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar , [(2007) 14 SCC 768] wherein at para Nos.9, 10, 11, and 12 it was held as under:
"9. It is in the aforementioned prmise the allegations that Gautam Dubey and the appellant slapped the first informant and took out Rs. 1580 from his upper pocket mut be viewed.
10. No allegation was made that the money was paid by the informant having been put fear of injury or putting him in such fear by the appellant was intentional.
11. The first informant, admittedly, has also not delivered any property or valuable security to the appellant.
12. A distinction between theft and extortion is well known. Whereas offence of extortion is carried out by overpowering the will of the owner, in commission of an offence of theft the offender's intention is always to take without that person's consent."
7. In Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra , [(2014) 15 SCC 357] at para No.3 it wa
