Disposed¶48

Periyavaram Sudheekar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2026CRLP/4422/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest bail; anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS; Section 194 BNSS; direct approach to High Court; Sessions Court as first instance; concurrent jurisdiction; special case or extraordinary circumstance; Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala; Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar; Crime No.46 of 2026, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati District; Investigating Officer not to take coercive steps; impleadment of complainant respondent; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; disposed 15.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the learned Sessions Judge with a pre-arrest bail application within two weeks; until such time, Investigating Officer directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner/Accused. ¶48

Periyavaram Sudheekar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra… — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner/Accused, who directly approached the High Court for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS without first approaching the learned Sessions Judge, could be granted such discretionary relief. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The Petitioner's direct recourse to the High Court for pre-arrest bail, without first approaching the learned Sessions Judge, is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Although this Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS, such discretionary relief would only be granted when the petitioner establishes a special case or extraordinary circumstance; the Petitioner established neither, and in view of Mohammed Rasal.C and Jagdeo Prasad the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail.

¶45

Key takeaways

The Petitioner was relegated to approach the learned Sessions Judge by filing a pre-arrest bail application within two weeks; until such time, the Investigating Officer was directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner/Accused.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P. No.4422/2026, Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, disposed 15.07.2026) filed under Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.46 of 2026 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for offences punishable under Section 194 BNSS — Petitioner had directly approached the High Court without first seeking relief from the learned Sessions Judge — relying on the Apex Court decisions in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others, held: though the High Court enjoys concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS, discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail is granted only where a special case or extraordinary circumstance is established; the Petitioner established neither — Criminal Petition disposed of, petitioner relegated to approach the learned Sessions Judge within two weeks; until then the Investigating Officer directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner/Accused.

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 15.07.2026 Date of uploading :

¶2

APHC010279622026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3521]

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4422/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

PERIYAVARAM SUDHEEKAR REDDY, , S/O. RAMASUBBA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.2/8, SADHUVARIPALLI,PULLAPETA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY SHO, ALIPIRI P.S., TIRUPATI DISTRICT.,REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI.

¶15

M NARESH KUMAR, S/O. LATE M. RAVI, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-3-9, KOTHAPETA, PUNGANURU TOWN, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 23.06.2026 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2026 IN CRL.P.NO.4422 OF 2026.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶18

1.SODUM ANVESHA

¶19

2.BUGULU SREETEJA

¶20

¶21

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4422 of 2026 Dated 15.07.2026

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶23

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

ORDER :

¶26

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.46 of 2026 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 194 of ‘the BNSS’.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶28

On perusal of the record, the Petitioner without approaching the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance seeking pre-arrest bail and has directly approached this Court, which procedure is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala¹ and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others² . This Court had earlier granted some interim protection to the petitioner.

¶29

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal. C supra wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows:-

¶30

“7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it

¶31

1 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025.

¶32

2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc.

¶33

¶34

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4422 of 2026 Dated 15.07.2026

¶35

much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case.

¶36

8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre-arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court.

¶37

9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/ extraordinary circumstances.”

¶38

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad supra at para No. 6 as

¶39

under:

¶40

"6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellantcomplainant as a party."

¶41

Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the

¶42

BNSS.,’ such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner

¶43

¶44

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4422 of 2026 Dated 15.07.2026

¶45

establishes a special case or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioner neither established a special case nor extra-ordinary circumstance. However, in view of the orders passed in Mohammed Rasal.C and Jagdeo Prasad supra , this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, as he has not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance.

¶46

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is disposed of requiring the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge by filing an application seeking grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Until such time, the Investigating Officer is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner/Accused.

¶47