Disposed

Kola Vinod alias Kola Vinod Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CRLP/7909/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court criminal petition dismissed a plea for direct pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS. The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust the concurrent remedy of approaching the Sessions Court first. Citing Apex Court precedents, the court directed the petitioner to file the bail application before the Sessions Judge within two weeks and stayed coercive action pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file pre-arrest bail application before the Sessions Judge within two weeks. Investigation officer directed to stay coercive steps against the petitioner during this period and continue investigation.

Kola Vinod alias Kola Vinod Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010471072026

¶2

[3521]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7909/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

KOLA VINOD ALIAS KOLA VINOD KUMAR, S/O. APPALASWAYM,AGE 43 YEARS, OCC DAILY WAGE,R/O. OLD RELLI STREET, PARVATHIPURAM TOWN,PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, MANYAM DISTRICT-535501.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, by the Station House Officer,Parvathiuram PS Special Enforcement Bureau,rep. by the Public Prosecutor,for the State of Andhra Pradesh,High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravati-522239.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

1.P SRILATHA REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶18

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioner/Accused No.3, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.613 of 2020 of Parvathipuram Police Station (Special Enforcement

¶21

¶22

Bureau), Parvathipuram Manyam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections7-A read with 8(3) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

¶23

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

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was implicated based on a confession of Accused No.1. FIR was registered in the year 2020, and for the past six years, the police have not taken any steps in this matter. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, has a fixed abode and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting pre-arrest bail.

¶25

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has approached this Court without approaching the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance.

¶26

As seen from the record, the petitioner, without approaching the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance seeking pre-arrest bail, 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 .

¶27

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal. C supra wherein

¶28

at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows:-

¶29

“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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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 prearrest bail directly in special/ extra-ordinary circumstances.”

¶36

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

¶37

under:

¶38

"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 appellant-complainant as a party."

¶39

¶40

Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS.,’ such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner 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.

¶41

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, permitting 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 then, the Investigating Officer is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner/Accused No.3. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer is directed to conduct further investigation, and the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶42

In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶43

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶44

Date: 16.09.2026 BMS

Kola Vinod alias Kola Vinod Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kola Vinod alias Kola Vinod Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases