Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail in the event of Petitioner’s arrest in Crime No. 110 of 2025 dated 05.07.2025 on the file of Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuramu District

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit to implead me as the proposed respondent No 2 in Criminal Petition No. 1398 of 2026, in the interest of justice and pass

The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.110 of 2025 on the file of Yadiki Town Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prior to 27.11.2024, the accused allegedly contacted the de-facto complainant, Nuthala Sai Kalyan, who is engaged in maize business, and induced him to supply maize by representing that he was running a trading organization in Hyderabad. Believing the representation, the complainant supplied 14 loads of maize worth Rs.1,28,14,340/-. The accused is stated to have paid Rs.68,26,080/- in part and allegedly failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.59,88,260/-. When demanded, the accused is alleged to have threatened the complainant. Based on the complaint, the present crime was registered.

3. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offence and that the dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of a commercial transaction. He would further submit that there was no entrustment of property to attract the offence of criminal breach of trust and no dishonest intention at the inception to attract the offence of cheating. He would further submit that the petitioner has already made substantial payments and that the remaining dispute pertains to recovery of money. It is also contended that the complaint is filed only to harass the petitioner and amounts to abuse of process of law. He would further submit that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court.

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the petitioner is involved in cheating multiple farmers and has misappropriated huge amounts. It is further submitted that the investigation is still pending and if anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond or continue similar activities. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that serious allegations are made against the petitioner involving cheating of farmers to the tune of large amounts. The record indicates involvement of substantial sums, reportedly aggregating around Rs.80,00,000/- in related instances and also there are six antecedents are there against the petitioner. The investigation is still in progress and examination of witnesses is pending.

7. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the magnitude of the alleged financial loss, and the stage of investigation. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner may abscond or interfere with the investigation cannot be brushed aside.