CRLP/1253/2026 of Boddeda Rama Gopal alias Rama Gopal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 5 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.5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.38 of 2022 of Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 467, 468, 471, 420 and 201 of IPC and Section 66-D of IT Act, 2000.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant is Deputy Section Officer, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Thulluru Mandal, he received an whatsapp massage about a notification of by Hon‟ble High Court alleged to be issued by Registrar (Recruitment), A.P. High Court, Nelapadu. The said Whatsapp massage was received from Cell Phone 9441609952 of one Simhachalam, A.O. SCs & STs Court, Rajahmundry and he made a phone call enquiring as per the whatsapp whether eight members selected for the post of Clerk (CC) requesting him to enquire the same. But in fact the Registry of High Court has not issued any such Notification and further there is no category post of „Clerk (CC)‟ either in the High Court or Sub-ordinate Courts. The said Deputy Section Officer, High Court of Andhra Pradesh complained the same to the SHO, Thullur Police Station to enquire and investigation to bring all the concerned offenders/conspirators expeditiously to the Court of justice to prosecute them as per law. During the course of investigation on 25.02.2022, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested, on 04.03.2022 accused No.4 was arrested, on 16.03.2022 accused No.3 was arrested and on 21.03.2022 accused Nos.6 to 9 were arrested.

3. Heard Mr.C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.R.Sudha Rani, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is Accused No.5 and that no specific overt acts are attributed to him in the present matter. It is further submitted that the investigation might have been completed. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel would also submit that, during the course of hearing, the Investigating Officer appeared before this Court and submitted that the name of the petitioner was shown as Accused No.5 in this matter based on the confession statements of Accused Nos.3 and 4, and that they could not secure any incriminating material against the petitioner in support of the said confessions. It is further submitted that except for Section 467 of the IPC, all the remaining offences are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (7) years, and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

6. Considering the submissions made, upon perusal of the material available on record, and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, since the petitioner is a public servant, there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice. So far, the investigation indicates that, except for the confession statements, nothing incriminating has been unearthed against the petitioner. It is also to be noted that, except for Section 467 of the IPC, the remaining offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven (7) years. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Section 467 of the IPC has no application to the petitioner/Accused No.5. The truth or otherwise of the said contention cannot be decided at this stage and requires detailed investigation. Therefore, the Investigating Officer is directed to comply with Section 35(3) of the BNS / Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C., and it is left open to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation in all aspects, in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the Registrar (Administration) is directed to monitor the investigation in this matter.

7. In Rajan and another vs. State of Kerala1, the High Court of Kerala at paragraph No.7 held as hereunder: “7. In Criminal Courts thousands of Bail Applications would be dealt with and disposed of. The accused would be released on bail either on the basis of the affidavits filed by the sureties or on production of revenue receipts, electoral identity cards, title deeds or solvency certificates by the sureties. It would not be proper to verify the genuineness or otherwise of all the documents before issuing copy of the order in the Bail Application or before releasing the accused from judicial custody. The urgency of the situation would warrant immediate release of the accused. The Courts would normally rely on the documents produced by the sureties. If the sureties produce forged documents and get release of the accused, the Criminal Courts would not be in a position to enforce the attendance of the accused. Even the sureties cannot be proceeded against since in some of the cases the details furnished regarding sureties may be bogus. The proceedings in Bail Applications are taken and finalized on a mutual trust and confidence. If such trust and confidence is found out of place, it would affect the chances of getting bail urgently by other deserving accused. The practice of producing forged documents in Courts and getting release of the accused on the basis of such forged documents of the sureties should be curbed at any cost. If such cases are detected, a very strict approach is required, even in the matter of granting bail to the accused against whom allegation is levelled that they produced forged documents as sureties in another case.”

1 Bail Appl..No. 5668 of 2011

8. In Kavinder Singh Khanna @ Kulwinder Singh Khanna @ K.S. Khanna vs. Shamsher Singh Sekhon and another2, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held as hereunder:

“As per the report submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, all the sureties furnished by the petitioner were found to be fake. There was no Numberdar in the name of Satnam Singh, who had identified the sureties of the accused-petitioner at the time of furnishing surety bonds. Accordingly, FIR No.163 dated 04.06.2013, under Sections 419, 420, 464, 465, 466, 468, 471 IPC, has been registered against the accused-petitioner at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had furnished fake sureties before the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar and an FIR No.163 dated 04.06.2013, under Sections 419, 420, 464, 465, 466, 468, 471 IPC, has been registered against him at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar. The plea of the petitioner that he was not present during the hearing of appeals and thereby he has been prejudiced, is liable to be rejected. Moreover, having examined the impugned judgments, no illegality, much less irregularity, has been found therein warranting interference by this Court.”

9. In the light of the aforementioned premises and legal positions referred supra, this Court feels that monitoring the investigation is required in this matter. Hence, the Registrar (Administrator) is directed to monitor the investigation in this case.

10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of BNS/Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., and to strictly follow the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme 2 Crl. Revision No. 51 of 2013

Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar3 and Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand4.

___________________________________

DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 06.03.2026 S D P

3(2014) 8 SCC 273 4(2023) 8 SCC 632

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1253 OF 2026 06.03.2026

S D P