Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14468
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
V ADLAMUDI CHENNA RAO – Appellant
Versus
S TATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7822/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: KILARU NITHIN KRISHNA
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Pre-arrest bail is denied where investigation is ongoing, and there exists a likelihood of the accused evading law enforcement.
Headnote:(A) Sections 331(4), 305(e) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Pre-arrest bail - Petition filed for pre-arrest bail in a theft case involving non-judicial stamps and valuable documents worth Rs.13,56,300/- - Accused contends innocence and potential hardship due to incarceration - Respondent opposes bail citing ongoing investigation and risk of absconding. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The court noted that the accused's release may hinder the investigation process as material witnesses remain to be examined. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of trespassing into a Government Office and committing theft of valuable documents, with allegations also involving physical injuries requiring hospitalization.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner's request for pre-arrest bail is denied due to the seriousness of the allegations and potential risk to the investigation.
Issues: The primary issue was whether to grant pre-arrest bail related to ongoing investigations and the likelihood of evading the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail may not be appropriate in cases involving serious violations, especially when the investigation is active and the accused poses a flight risk. (Paras 4, 7, 8)
Result: The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the theft case and petitioner's claims. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against granting bail due to ongoing investigation. (Para 4) |
| 3. court findings on the risks associated with bail. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
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 No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.171 of 2025 of Gannavaram UPS Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 331 (4), 305 (e) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS ’).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.07.2025 at about 18:00 hours, the de-facto complainant, who stated that he is working as Joint Sub-Registrar, reported that on 02.07.2025 at about 20:30 hours, the staff members locked the office and left. On the next day, i.e., 03.07.2025 at about 10:00 A.M., when the complainant and the staff came to open the office, they found the lock already broken, and unknown offenders had committed theft of non-judicial stamps and empty stamp papers, and escaped with booty worth Rs.13,56,300/-.
3. Mr. Kilaru Nithin Krishna, 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 member of the family and, therefore, his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
4. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, 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 at this stage, 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, 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 petitioner and the other accused have trespassed into the Sub-Registrar Office, Gannavaram, and allegedly committed theft of non-judicial stamps and other stamps worth a total of Rs.13,56,300/-. The police have arrested Accused Nos.2 and 3, and as per the remand report, Accused No.1 suffered some injuries and is undergoing treatment in the hospital. This is a case where the petitioner and other accused allegedly trespassed into a Government Office and committed theft of valuable documents. This is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner urges this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned on his discharge from the hospital and to move an appropriate application before the learned Magistrate for enlarging him on bail.
8. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned shall make an endeavor to dispose of the application on its own merits, in accordance with law, by giving due and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the learned Public Prosecutor and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably within two (02) days. If any application is filed seeking custodial interrogation of Accused No.1, the learned Magistrate concerned may pass appropriate orders on such application on its own merits, in accordance with law. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
