AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No.10 of 2020 of S.R. Puram Police Station, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’).
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
Mr. Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.3 in this case. He is the Nodal Officer and certifies the bills. He is not a public servant. An enquiry report was submitted, wherein it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.28,05,269/- has allegedly been misappropriated by the petitioner. It is further submitted that, on 28.07.2026, the Investigating Officer issued a notice under Section 179 of ‘the BNSS’, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Hyderabad. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he urged to allow the petition.
Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the petitioner falls within the definition of Public Servant and that the provisions of Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC are attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. There is an enquiry report submitted by the competent authority, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.28,05,269/-. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition and, hence, he urged to dismiss the petition, as the petitioner has not approached the learned Sessions Court at the first instance.
On perusal of the record, the case is of the year 2020, which was registered on 06.03.2020 in Crime No.10 of 2020 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 of ‘the IPC’ on the file of S.R. Puram Police Station. The petitioner has acted as Nodal Officer for certification of bills. Whether the petitioner is a public servant or not is a matter to be decided after filing of the charge sheet. As of now, it is alleged that the petitioner has committed the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of ‘the IPC’. It is pertinent to note that a notice under Section 179 of ‘the BNSS’ has been issued by the S.R. Puram Police Station to the petitioner, requiring him to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days. The petitioner has not appeared before the Investigating Officer as directed.
Be that as it may, the petitioner, without approaching the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance seeking pre-arrest bail, has directly approached this Court. Such a course is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala1 and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others2.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal. C supra wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows:-
“7.The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case.
8.We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre-arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court.
9.It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/ extra-ordinary circumstances.”
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad supra wherein at para No. 6 as under:
"6.However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant-complainant as a party."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were granted station bail by the Investigating Officer. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no instructions to that effect. The case was registered, as mentioned supra, about six years ago. So far, the Investigating Officer has not taken any steps. For recording the statement of the petitioner, nearly six years after registration of the case, the Investigating Officer has issued a notice under Section 179 of ‘the BNSS’.
Albeit this Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, such discretionary relief can be granted only when the petitioner establishes a special case or extraordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the petitioner has neither established any special case nor demonstrated any extraordinary circumstance. However, in view of the orders passed in Mohammed Rasal C. and Jagdeo Prasad, supra, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as he has not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge by filing an application seeking grant of pre-arrest bail within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such time, the Investigating Officer is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 24.08.2026 pursuant to the notice issued under Section 179 of ‘the BNSS’.
In the result the Criminal Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Date: 17.08.2026
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6860 of 2026 17.08.2026
Note: Issue CC by 19.08.2026 B/o.