CRLP/2189/2026 of Ashish Jain Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 March 2026

ORDER:-

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the petitioner/Accused No.1, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.222/2025 on the file of the Krishnalanka P.S, Vijayawada, NTR District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant filed a complaint stating that he and his brother intended to purchase gold for a family marriage. A friend introduced them to A2, who was operating an office under the name Somabhai Ramesh Kantilal & Co. at Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. Upon visiting the office, they met A2 to A5, who assured them that gold could be supplied at lower tax rates. Trusting their representation, the complainant and his brother paid Rs. 1 crore to A2 to A5 at the office. The accused asked them to return later to collect the gold; however, when they came back, the office was found locked. Although A1 initially answered a call claiming that the gold would arrive by night, he thereafter stopped responding.

3. Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is Accused No.1, has no specific allegations against him regarding receipt of money from the defacto complainant and that he has neither met nor seen the defacto complainant at any point of time. It is contended that the only allegation is that the defacto complainant spoke to the petitioner over the phone, though the said phone number is not even mentioned in the complaint. It is further submitted that the police initially issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner, while arresting Accused Nos. 2 to 5, who are alleged to have actively participated in the offence and received the money. Learned counsel also submits that, without knowledge of such notice, the petitioner‟s counsel had filed an anticipatory bail application before the District Court, which was dismissed. It is argued that the petitioner‟s case stands on a different footing from that of the other accused, as he neither participated in the alleged offence nor benefited from the alleged act of cheating, and that he is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court; hence, the petition may be allowed.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that the police have already issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the petitioner. She would further submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders giving liberty to the prosecution to obtain permission from the Court, in case custody of the petitioner is required.

6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, there is some merit in the contention that except referring the name of the petitioner in the complaint, that the defacto complainant called him over phone, nothing is specifically attributed against him in this matter. At the same time, there is also some force in the contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that investigation is not yet completed and it is at nascent stage, therefore, liberty may be granted to the investigating officer to take the petitioner into custody, if required, subject to obtaining prior permission of the Court.

7. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following:

a. Investigating Officer is at liberty to complete the investigation, in accordance with law.

b. In the event of any coercive action sought to be taken against the petitioner, concerned police authorities are further directed to scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35 (3) of BNSS., [Section 41-A Cr.P.C] and the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1.

c. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

d. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the concerned Court.

e. The petitioner shall not leave the Country without the permission of the concerned Court.

f. The Investigating Officer is at liberty to obtain permission of the concerned Court, in case, anything incriminating material is unearth against the petitioner warranting his custody during the course of investigation.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________

DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 31.03.2026 UPS

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2189 OF 2026 Dt: 31.03.2026

UPS