Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs State Of Jharkhand And Others on 17 March, 2026
APHC010649852025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12485/2025
Between:
BOGGARAPU NAGARAJU, S/O B. SUBBA GURUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT
58 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 25/695/11, FLAT NO 101, SAI RESIDENCY,
SRINIVASA NAGAR, NADYALA.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI, THROUGH S.H.O.,
NANDYALA III TOWN POLICE STATION, NADYALA DISTRICT.
2. MANU ITTINA, S/O. LATE I. MAHABALESHWARAPPA, R/O. 380,
ITTINA CENTER KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE TOWN,
KARNATAKA STATE. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
THE COURT ORDER DATED 12.12.2025 IN CRL.P.NO.12485 OF
2025.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. P M MITHILESHWARA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. D S SIVADARSHAN
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), by the Petitioner / Accused No.1 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.31 of 2025 on the file of Nandyal III Town Police Station, Nandyal District which is 2 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.M.Mithileswara Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D.S.Sivadarshan, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 / State.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has not committed any offences much less the alleged offences. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that there are business transactions between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 from the year 2010 and the same were continued for several years. It is further submitted that, disputes arose between them in the year 2018 on account of financial transactions, due to the failure of Respondent No.2 to return substantial development funds borrowed from the Petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, in view of such defaults, Petitioner was constrained to initiate legal proceedings against Respondent No.2 including 28 cheque bounce cases and 12 civil suits, involving an aggregate amount exceeding Rs.60 Crores. Respondent No.2 had entered appearance and filed written statements in all the civil suits in the year 2019, thereby acknowledging the pendency of civil disputes between the parties.
3
Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the present criminal proceedings are clear abuse of process, arising out of the said financial disputes. The present crime came to be registered alleging that certain receipts filed in O.S.No.18 of 2019 are forged. It is submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3655 of 2025, while permitting investigation to continue, specifically directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner herein along with other Accused.
Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the respondent police conducted a search at the premises of the accused and allegedly seized certain documents, including letterheads and cheques of the complainant's company. Based on the very same alleged recovery, another FIR in Crime No.111 of 2025 was registered at Kormangala Police Station, Karnataka. The Karnataka High Court has stayed all further proceedings in the said crime.
Learned Senior Counsel further contends that, thereafter, multiple FIRs bearing Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, and 90 of 2025 were registered on same set of allegations i.e., the receipts filed in various civil suits of the year 2019 are forged. Yet another FIR in Crime No.97 of 2025, was registered on similar lines alleging forgery of promissory notes. All these FIRs arise out of the same set of transactions and documents.
It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has granted stay of all further proceedings in the FIRs registered subsequent to the present crime, recognizing the repetitive and overlapping nature of the allegations. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that though the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 4 in SLP No.45961 of 2025, stayed the interim order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3655 of 2025, the said SLP has been disposed of with a direction to hear Respondent No.2 at the time of final bail consideration.
It is submitted that the Petitioner was arrested in connection with the present crime, however, the learned Magistrate declined to grant remand, observing that the Respondent police failed to follow mandatory legal procedures and noting the overenthusiastic conduct of the police authorities. It is further submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 12.12.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 had already granted interim bail to the Petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the present proceedings are purely civil in nature, arising out of longstanding financial disputes, and have been given a criminal colour. The multiplicity of FIRs on identical allegations, the grant of stay orders by constitutional courts, and the failure of the police to adhere to due process clearly demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is neither warranted nor justified. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner / Accused No.1. In support of their contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment f the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Binay Kumar Singh and another vs. State of Jharkhand and others1.
1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 208 5
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the present case discloses grave and serious offences involving a well- orchestrated conspiracy by the Petitioner along with other Accused, attracting the alleged offences thereby disentitling the Petitioner from the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, the investigation so far done discloses strong prima facie material against the Petitioner. The search and seizure conducted on 10.04.2025 resulted in recovery of highly incriminating articles from the accused's own premises, including 21 stolen letterheads of IPPL and its group entities, cheque leaves, torn promissory notes bearing signatures on revenue stamps, and company seals, which directly substantiate the allegations of fabrication and forgery.
Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is very much essential in the present case. The role of co-conspirators, including the accused's employee who allegedly facilitated theft of original stationery, is yet to be fully investigated, and the Petitioner must be confronted with the seized materials to elicit the truth and unravel the larger conspiracy.
It is also submitted that the conduct of the Petitioner would demonstrate a systematic and continuing course of criminality. The multiplicity of proceedings, including numerous civil suits and cheque bounce cases based on fabricated documents, clearly establishes abuse of legal process to harass and extort Respondent No.2.
6
Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the Petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation, having failed to respond to notices issued under Section 41-A CrPC. The non-cooperative attitude of the Petitioner, coupled with the gravity of allegations, indicates a likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses if protected by anticipatory bail. Respondent No.2 has already faced life threats at the hands of A1, and there exists a real and imminent risk to witnesses and material evidence.
Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Accused No.6 has been arrested and has made certain disclosures, which require corroboration through custodial interrogation of the Petitioner herein. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the investigation. In such circumstances, prayed for dismissal of the petition. In support of their contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Manchanda vs. State of Haryana2, Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra and another3, Adri Dharan Das vs. State of W.B4 and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another5.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are prima facie allegations against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the investigation is at the crucial stage. There are no grounds to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 2 (2023) 8 SCC 181 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489 4 (2005) 4 SCC 303 5 (2022) 14 SCC 516 7
6. 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. AdityaSarda,6 held that:
"18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court has consistently emphasised that anticipatory bail 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 resintegra 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 seriousoffences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country."
(emphasis supplied)
7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner, Respondent No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and perused the material available on record. At the outset, though the Petitioner sought to project the dispute as purely civil in nature arising out of long-standing financial transactions between the parties, this Court is unable to accept the said contention in light of the specific and serious allegations made in the present crime. The material placed before the Court, at this stage of investigation, prima facie discloses that the dispute is not confined to mere recovery of money, but involves allegations of fabrication of documents, forgery of receipts, and use of such forged documents in judicial proceedings.
6 2025 SCC Online SC 764 8
8. The contention of the Petitioner that multiple civil suits and cheque bounce cases were initiated against Respondent No.2, and that the present proceedings are a counterblast, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. On the contrary, the allegation of the prosecution is that such proceedings were instituted based on fabricated and forged documents, which, if proved, would constitute serious offences affecting the administration of justice. As is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2, the search conducted on 10.04.2025 resulted in seizure of several incriminating articles from the premises of the Accused, including letterheads of the complainant's company, cheque leaves, torn promissory notes containing signatures on revenue stamps, and company seals. Such material, at this stage, lends prima facie support to the prosecution case that the Petitioner was in possession of instruments capable of being used for fabrication of documents.
9. Further, the contention of the prosecution that the offences involve a well-orchestrated conspiracy cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The role of co-accused, including the alleged involvement of an employee who facilitated the theft of original stationery, is yet to be fully unearthed. The investigation is still at a crucial stage, and custodial interrogation of the Petitioner appears necessary to confront him with the seized material and to ascertain the manner in which the alleged forged documents were created and utilized.
10. The argument of the Petitioner regarding multiplicity of FIRs and grant of interim orders by various Courts, does not convince this Court to grant 9 anticipatory bail in the present case. Each FIR has to be examined on its own merits, particularly when the allegations disclose use of different forged documents in different proceedings. This Court also takes note of the submission that the Petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation and has failed to respond to notices issued under Section 41-A CrPC. Such conduct, coupled with the serious nature of allegations, raises a reasonable apprehension that the Petitioner may not cooperate with the investigating agency if protected by an order of anticipatory bail.
11. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses also cannot be said to be unfounded. In the light of the judgments referred to supra, which are relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2, it is well settled principle that an anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted cautiously, particularly in cases involving serious economic offences, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, where custodial interrogation is necessary. On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner is not helpful to the case of the Petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, where specific material has been collected during investigation pointing towards prima facie involvement of the Petitioner.
12. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the nature of evidence collected, the requirement of custodial interrogation, the stage of investigation, and the alleged conduct of the Petitioner in not cooperating with the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is not 10 entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:17.03.2026 Dinesh 11 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.12485 of 2025 Dt.17.03.2026 Dinesh