Criminal Petition for pre-arrest bail under S. 482 BNSS dismissed. Court held that petitioner must approach Sessions Court first per Apex Court precedents. No extraordinary circumstances found to justify High Court intervention.
Petitioner granted liberty to approach the Sessions Judge. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APHC010465702026
[3521]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7783/2026
Between:
VELUGANTI GANGARAJU, S/O VELUGANTI VENKATA RAMANA, AGE 24 YEARS.AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O D. NO.7-63, VITRAYAKUDI TEMPLE STREET.RAGHUNADHAPURAM, SRI RAINAPURAM POST, PALACHARLA VILLAGE,RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
ANURADHA GURRAM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7783 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
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.447 of 2025 of Rajamahendravaram South Prohibition and Excise Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7-B read with 8-A of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.
Prasad v. State of Bihar and others2 .
“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 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
1 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025.
2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc.
3
Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7783 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026
Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case.
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.
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.”
under:
"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."
BNSS.,’ such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner establishes a special case or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the
4
Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7783 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026
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.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 15.09.2026 RSI/DRNR
5
Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7783 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026
17
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7783 of 2026
15.09.2026
RSI/DRNR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail when the petitioner has not approached the Sessions Court first.
Whether the special case exception applies to allow direct pre-arrest bail application in the High Court under Section 482 BNSS.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohammed Rasal. C v. State of KeralaDistinguished¶4
Mohammed Rasal. C v. State of Kerala
Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and othersDistinguished¶5
Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Veluganti Gangaraju
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Y. Lakshmana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
