MADDURI MALLIKARJUNA RAO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

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 may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on Bail in the event of their arrest in Crime in FIR No.31 of 2026 on the file of Narsaraopet I Town Police Station, Palnadu District, pending disposal of the Anticipatory Bail and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2587/2026 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by petitioner/Accused No.4, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime in FIR No.31 of 2026 on the file of Narsaraopet I Town Police Station, Palnadu District, for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(3), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant submitted a report stating that on an enquiry conducted as per the directions of the District Collector, Palnadu District, based on the complaints received from banks and representations regarding large scale loan defaults by certain Self-Help Groups which revealed that the accused along with certain others conspired and created fake SHGs, used individuals not registered in the MEPMA online portal and misappropriated loan amount involving Rs.9,59,61,917/- availed from different banks. Basing on the said report, the present crime has been registered.

3. Heard Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Perused the record. 3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is a community organizer. It is alleged against him that he along with Accused No.1 created Self Help Groups under MEPMA and availed loan amount, which is not cleared to the banks. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is only a contract employee. He is not a public servant. This case has been lodged at the behest of the local M.L.A., who referred this complaint to the District Collector that is why, the petitioner herein directly filed anticipatory bail application before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is sole bread winner of his family. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and is ready to co-operate for the investigation. He finally prays to allow the petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State would submit that there are total nine (9) accused in this matter. Investigation is at nascent stage. Money trail yet to be unearthed. They have to receive call data records. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, the fact remains that no specific allegations are made against the present petitioner; they are only omnibus allegations that he has also played a part in the conspiracy. This is not the stage to decide the culpability by accepting the allegations. The fact remains that some people approached the local M.L.A., on whose reference the District Collector has taken initiative for 4 registration of the present case. Be that as it may, the investigation is not completed and is at a nascent stage, what is the role of the petitioner and his complicity is also not established by this date. In that view, taking into consideration the facts of the case, and that he has no criminal antecedents, it is apposite to dispose of the petition with the following: a. Investigating Officer is at liberty to complete the investigation, in accordance with law. b. In the event of any coercive action sought to be taken against the petitioner, concerned police authorities are further directed scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35 (3) of BNSS., [Section 41-A Cr.P.C] and the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1. c. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the concerned Court. d. The petitioner shall not leave the country without express permission from the concerned Court. e. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any prosecution witnesses and cooperate in all means for the purpose of investigation. 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 5 f. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with further investigation, if any and shall provide any information or material documents for the purpose of investigation. g. This protection will be continued to the petitioner subject to his conduct and cooperation to the investigation failing which, the prosecution is at liberty to take appropriate steps. h. In case any incriminating material is unearthed during the course of investigation which requires custodial interrogation, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to arrest the petitioner after obtaining permission of the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate Court.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 08.04.2026. UPS __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J 16 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2587 OF 2026 Dt: 08.04.2026 UPS