Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yedupati Abhilash vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 March, 2026
1
APHC010086322026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1333/2026
Between:
1. YEDUPATI ABHILASH, S/O YEDUPATI MALYADRI, AGE 32
YEARS,OCC BUSINESS. R/O YAGANTI PARKWOOD
APARTMENTS,12TH LANE, SRIRAM NAGAR, GORANTIA, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, AP.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT
AMARAVATI.
2. LAMBADI SHANMUKHA SOM, S/O. RAMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.301, CAPITAL WAY-1 APARTMENT,
2ND LINE, SAINATH COLONY, INNER RING ROAD, GORANTLA,
GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS
IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 27.02.2026 IN
I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN CRL.P.NO.1333 OF 2026.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to direct the S.H.O., Pattabhipuram
P.S, Guntur District to enlarge the petitioner/AI on bail in the event of his
arrest in connection with Crime No.568 of 2025 of Pattabhipuram P.S, Guntur
District and to pass
2
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased it is prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be
pleased to implead the proposed respondent No. 2 as party respondent in
CRLP.No.1333 of 2026 for effective adjudicating the matter and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
3
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1333/2026
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.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.568 of 2025 of Pattabhipuram P.S, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 140(2), 308(5), 115(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNS').
2. Heard Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that that the de facto complainant was intercepted by unknown persons who impersonated themselves as narcotics police officers and forcibly shifted him to another location where they demanded Rs.50,00,000/- to avoid implicating him in a case. Upon his refusal, he was assaulted. It is further stated that Ashok and Abhilash were also brought to the said place and were similarly assaulted by the persons and released them when they paid an amount. Thereafter, the persons have forcibly taken an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the de facto complainant. Basing on the said complaint, a case has been registered. 4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.1 in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner is innocent and has no manner of involvement in the alleged offence. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner/Accused No.1, along with the complainant, was also a victim in the said incident. It is further submitted that, except for the alleged confession statements of Accused Nos.5 and 6, there is no iota of evidence linking the petitioner with the alleged crime. Learned counsel would also point out that, as per the contents of the complaint itself, the petitioner/Accused No.1 was also assaulted by the unknown persons. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court and, therefore, prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the petition by imposing appropriate conditions.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the father of the petitioner and the de facto complainant are partners in a firm. It is further submitted that disputes have arisen between them with regard to the business carried on by the said firm.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation in the present matter is still in progress. It is submitted that, based on the confession statements of Accused Nos. 5 and 6, the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.1 in the present case. He would further submit that a Test Identification Parade is yet to be conducted. According to the prosecution, though the petitioner projected himself as one of 5 the victims in the incident, in fact he played a role in the commission of the offence and the case involves a criminal conspiracy. It is also submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further contended that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail as a prima facie case has been made out against him based on the material collected during the course of investigation. He would further submit that the petitioner has directly filed the present anticipatory bail before this Court. It is further contended that, if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence and hamper the ongoing investigation. Therefore, he prayed that the petition be dismissed.
7. Considering the submissions made and upon careful perusal of the material on record, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the investigation is still at a nascent stage. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed questions of fact which require a full-fledged investigation and cannot be gone into at this stage.
8. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one and grant of the same is the judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. Aditya Sarda,1 held as follows:
"18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court has consistently emphasised that anticipatory bail 1 2025 SCC Online SC 764 6 should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes.
***
23. Given the above settled legal position, it is no more res integra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep-rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds. Therefore, such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged and the stage of the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.
10. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 03.03.2026.
UPS 7 190 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1333/2026 Dt: 03.03.2026 UPS