CRLP/4092/2026 of Sagi alias Nakkala Surekha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 6 May 2026

ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.14 and 16 respectively in Crime No.359 of 2025 of Arundelpet Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 316(5) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), and subsequently altered by adding Sections 111(2), 111(3), 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS.

2. Since both the criminal petitions arise out of the same crime and involve common questions of fact and law, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.06.2025 at about 9.00 p.m., the de-facto complainant lodged a report before Arundelpet Police Station alleging that Accused Nos.1 to 6 and other associates developed acquaintance with him and represented that they were carrying on business relating to “rice pulling machines” through a company by name “AIR SPACE METALS” at Delhi. It is alleged that the accused induced the complainant to believe that if he invests an amount of Rs.15,00,00,000/-, he would receive profits to a tune of Rs.2,000 crores. The accused further represented that highly influential persons and dignitaries were partners in the said company.

Believing such representations, the complainant allegedly paid an amount of Rs.7.4 crores in cash to the accused at different intervals in the presence of witnesses namely Jogendar, Ravi and Nagaraju. Subsequently, the complainant having realized that the accused persons had cheated him, breached his trust and misappropriated the amounts paid by him, lodged a complaint. Based on the said complaint, the above crime came to be registered initially for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 316(5) read with Section 3(5) of BNS.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency allegedly collected material indicating involvement of other accused persons including the present petitioners. The acts of the accused disclose organized criminal activity committed as part of a crime syndicate, involving cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation and misappropriation of huge amounts. Accordingly, additional offences under Sections 111(2), 111(3), 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS were added and a memo was filed before the jurisdictional Court.

5. Heard Sri Sapthagiri Metta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/Accused Nos.14 and 16, and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that names of the petitioners do not find place in the original complaint and there are absolutely no specific allegations against them. It is submitted that the allegations in the complaint are mainly directed against Accused Nos.1 to 6 and that the petitioners have no concern whatsoever with the alleged business activities. It is argued that mere relationship with Accused No.1 or mere acquaintance cannot constitute an offence. He further submits that the petitioner/Accused No.14 is the husband of Accused No.1 and petitioner/Accused No.16 is related to Accused No.1 as her son-in-law, and mere family relationship cannot be a ground to implicate the petitioners in the present crime. Learned counsel would further submit that, mere blood relationship cannot be a ground to implicate all family members in a criminal case. It is further contended that there are no allegations that the petitioners induced the complainant, received any amount from him, issued threats, or made any fraudulent representations. It is also argued that mere telephonic conversations between the petitioners and other accused persons would not establish the ingredients of cheating under Sections 318(2) and 318(4) of BNS. Learned counsel submits that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, there must exist dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction and the complaint does not disclose any such intention attributable to the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no evidence to show that any part of the alleged cheated amount was transferred to or shared with the petitioners. It is also contended that the petitioners are neither public servants nor agents connected with the alleged transactions. It is submitted that the petitioners were implicated subsequently only on the basis of alleged confession statements. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are permanent residents of Srikalahasthi and are ready to cooperate with the investigation. It is submitted that one of the petitioners is a senior citizen aged about 67 years having permanent residence and landed property and there is no possibility of absconding.

8. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petitions contending that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the role of the petitioners is being unearthed. It is submitted that huge amounts are involved in the present crime and the material collected so far prima facie, indicates the involvement of the petitioners in the organized criminal activity. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for effective investigation, tracing of money trail, identification of other accused and collection of documentary and electronic evidence.

9. Considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that there are absolutely no allegations against the petitioners. The investigation appears to be in progress and the prosecution specifically asserts that several aspects including financial transactions, call records, movement details and involvement of other accused persons are yet to be investigated. The allegations pertain to cheating and criminal breach of trust involving huge amounts running into several crores of rupees. The offences alleged are serious in nature.

10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were implicated only on the basis of relationship with other accused and there are no direct allegations in the FIR, the same are to be examined during the course of investigation.

11. The contention regarding absence of dishonest intention, non-receipt of money and lack of direct overt acts are all matters that require thorough investigation. The prosecution has specifically stated that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for tracing the money trail and identifying other persons involved in the offence.

12. Having regard to the nature and gravity of allegations, the stage of investigation, the requirement of custodial interrogation and the material collected by the prosecution, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Dated 07.05.2026 KKV

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 4102 and 4092 of 2026

Dated 07.05.2026 KKV