Muppidi Suseela Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same crime, albeit the petitioners are different.

¶28

The Criminal Petition No.13361 of 2025 has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and Crl.P.No.13478 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.7 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.175 of 2025 in Penugonda Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 126(2), 319(2) and 308(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity of „the BNS‟).

¶29

Provenance of the case of prosecution is the complainant, Mallampalli Kishore, S/o Koteswara Rao, stated that he was working as a driver on lorry bearing Registration No. AP-16-TY-4712, belonging to Gottapu Ramesh of Pamarru Village. On 30.11.2025 at about 10:00 p.m., he started from Pamarru with a load of rice and proceeded towards Peddapuram.While proceeding on his journey, on 01.12.2025 at about 1:00 a.m., when he reached Siddantham Road turning at Penugonda Village, two persons came in a car bearing Registration No. AP-39-KK-9949, wrongfully restrained his lorry, and claimed that they were police officers. They informed him that ganja was being transported in the lorry and forcibly made him open the rear door and checked the vehicle. Though nothing incriminating was found and the complainant informed them that the load was rice, they did not heed. Thereafter, they

¶30

3

¶31

made phone calls to others, pursuant to which another car bearing Registration No. AP-37-TX-1111 arrived carrying four persons, including one woman. All the accused acted in a rude and violent manner, assaulted the complainant, and threatened him with dire consequences, including foisting a false ganja case and seizing the lorry. They demanded Rs.2,00,000/-. Upon the complainant informing the owner of the vehicle, the accused extorted Rs.60,000/and Rs.15,000/through PhonePe to mobile number 9493991333. Subsequently, the complainant came to know the names of the accused as Udatala Chandrasekhar (Velpuru), Jakkamsetti Srinivasa Rao (Achanta Vemavaram), Muppidi Suseela (Apparaopeta, Tadepalligudem), Anil (Nidadavole), Prasad and Baburao (DBR News, Tanuku). Basing on the report, dated 04.12.2025 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police Station, registered the FIR, which is under investigation.

¶32

Sri N.N. Somendra Reddy, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.7 submit that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinner of their family and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the Petitioners. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners.

¶33

4

¶34

It is further submitted that the Petitioners have a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition.

¶35

Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 7, acted in furtherance of a common intention with other accused persons by impersonating police officers and extorting money from the complainant and the vehicle owner. The record clearly establishes that the Petitioners were present at the scene of offence, participated in restraining the lorry, and threatened the complainant with false implication in a ganja case. An amount of Rs.75,000/- was extorted through PhonePe transfers from the vehicle owner, and an additional Rs.25,000/- was forcibly taken in cash from the driver. The complicity of Accused No.7 was revealed by a co‑accused during investigation, and eyewitnesses have confirmed the active role of both Petitioners in the commission of the offence.

¶36

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further contends that the delay in

¶37

lodging the FIR and the absence of direct monetary transfers to one of the Petitioners are matters for trial and cannot be grounds for anticipatory bail at this stage. The investigation is at a crucial juncture, with several witnesses yet to be examined, and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to

¶38

5

¶39

uncover their involvement in other similar offences. Granting pre‑arrest bail at this stage would seriously hamper the investigation, derail the process of identification through Test Identification Parade, and weaken the prosecution‟s ability to establish the truth.

¶40

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stresses that the Petitioners have adverse antecedents, with prior involvement in criminal cases, including conviction under the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 and earlier offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is eventually submitted that in view of the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the offence, and the need to protect the integrity of the investigation, the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should not be granted and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition.

¶41

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 10. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

¶42

“ Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail? ”

¶43

As seen from the record, the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 and 7, in furtherance of their common intention along with the other accused, impersonated police officers and extorted money from the victim/de facto complainant. Substantial amount was extorted through PhonePe from the owner of the vehicle, and a further substantial amount was extorted in cash from the driver of the vehicle. Accused No.1 revealed the complicity of Accused No.7 before the Investigating Officer. Accused No.7 was very much

¶44

6

¶45

present at the scene of offence along with the other accused, and his role is clearly established, as per the version of the eye-witnesses.

¶46

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the scene of offence is situated only 1 km away from the police station and that there was a delay of four days in lodging the FIR inasmuch as the alleged offence took place on 01.12.2025 and the complaint was lodged on 04.12.2025, these contentions are matters for trial and appreciation by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. Therefore, these contentions cannot be considered at this juncture, especially when the accusations against the petitioners appear to be prima facie well-founded.

¶47

Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to the petitioners, as a matter of routine, for the simple reason that they are required to be identified by the de facto complainant/victim in the course of a Test Identification Parade to be conducted by the jurisdictional Magistrate upon requisition by the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, L.Ws. 4 and 5 are eyewitnesses who, in their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, have stated that the petitioners, along with the other accused, participated in the commission of the offence. 14. The remaining accused who were arrested have been enlarged on regular bail. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no amount was transferred to the account of the petitioners, this contention cannot be examined in the present petition, as it falls within the exclusive domain of the learned Trial Court.

¶48

7

¶49

This Court, in Crl.P. No.12771 of 2025, dated 29.01.2026 has already dismissed the request for grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of Accused Nos.3 and 5. Further, custodial interrogation, if felt necessary, is required to be conducted by the Investigating Officer to ascertain the further role of the petitioners in other cases of similar nature.

¶50

The further contention that, except for the confession of the co-accused, there is no other substantial material to implicate the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage. So far, only eleven witnesses have been examined, and several more material witnesses are yet to be examined. The investigation is at a crucial stage. At this juncture, the petitioners cannot be enlarged on pre-arrest bail, as granting such relief would have a tendency to derail the investigation, which would not augur well for the progress of the

¶51

case

¶52

It is not out of place to mention that mere adverse antecedents by themselves are not a ground to deny the grant of pre-arrest bail, as laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh¹ , wherein at paragraph No.7, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that mere pendency of criminal cases is not sufficient to reject a pre-arrest bail application. However, Accused No.7 was involved in Crime No.21 of 2022 (C.C. No.112 of 2022) for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, wherein he was convicted. It is also pertinent to mention that Accused No.3 was involved in Crime No.64 of 2011 for the

¶53

1(2020) 11 SCC 648

¶54

8

¶55

alleged offences punishable under Section 384 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

¶56

The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh² at paragraph No.12 held as under:

¶57

12. We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the high courts/sessions courts declining prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily disclose in the ‘SYNOPSIS’ that either he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition.

¶58

In view of the specific allegations levelled against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail, as doing so would amount to extending a shield or protection to the petitioners, who are alleged to have committed serious offences. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) has cautioned that the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should not be granted mechanically, particularly in cases involving grave allegations.

¶59

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail.

¶60

In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.

¶61

2 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1400/2025

¶62

9

¶63

However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall make endeavor to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving sufficient opportunity to both sides within a period of one (01) week.

¶64

In case the petitioners do not choose to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the above-stipulated time, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed to affect the arrest of the petitioners in accordance with due process of law.

¶65

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶66

Date: 02.02.2026 KMS

¶67

10

¶68

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶69

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13361 and 13478 of 2025

¶70

Date: 02.02.2026