CRLP/1589/2026 of Tadigiri Ram Naresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 10 March 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

(for brevity “BNSS”) by the petitioner/Accused seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No.562 of 2025 on the file of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 338, 336(2), 336(3), 336(4), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 66-C, 66-D of IT Act, 2000-2008.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused, while working at Indian Bank, Gajuwaka branch, fraudulently manipulated customer accounts by issuing fake term deposit receipts, forging customer mandates, and altering mobile banking details. He transferred funds without consent to accounts of his relatives, misappropriating a total of Rs. 36,75,000/- and causing a wrongful loss to the bank of Rs. 53,33,644/-..

3. Heard Sri Singuru Sai Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and did not commit any offence. The petitioner is a Bank employee who is facing allegations of opening bank accounts in the names of his family members, misappropriating TDR bonds, and issuing fake FD receipts. The petitioner is an ordinary clerk and is currently under suspension, with an enquiry pending. According to the report, the alleged offences occurred prior to 2022, whereas the FIR was lodged on 29.12.2025, after a lapse of three years. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is willing to furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and prays to allow the petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that that the investigation is still at a nascent stage. She further submits that the accused played an active role in misappropriating funds and manipulating bank records, and several aspects of the case, including verification of transactions, examination of customers, and forensic analysis of bank documents, are yet to be completed. She further submitted that if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and obstructing the ongoing investigation. She finally prays for the dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material place on record, this Court is of the view that this is not a stage to consider the request of the petitioner as the investigation is at nascent stage. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition are disputed questions of fact which require a full-fledged investigation and cannot be gone into at this stage.

7. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one and grant of the same is the judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. Aditya Sarda,1 held as follows: “18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court has consistently emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes. ***

23. Given the above settled legal position, it is no more res integra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep-rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds. Therefore, such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country.” (emphasis supplied)

8. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged and the stage of the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

9. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

12025 SCC Online SC 764

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 11.03.2026 UPS

Date: 11.03.2026. UPS