Kosuru Suhasini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Dargamitta Urban Police Station, Court of Andhra

...Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant ■ Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances s ated ,n the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to Enlarge the Petifioner/Accused No. 1 on Anticipatory Bail direct the Respondent Police to release the Petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest ,n connection with Crime No. 42/2026 of Dargamitta Urban patron, SPSR Nellore District registered for offences punishable 2023 uXir'"'’ conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit; bearing, upon perusing the Petition

11.03.2026), such terms and The Petition, -.r, and the , dated Police .fra affidavrt filed rn support thereof and upon hearing the SIVA PRASAD, Counsel for the Petitioner R1 the Court made the following. arguments of Sri PATHI and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for , ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail BNSS’) in connection with (for brevity 2023 Crime No.42 of 2026 of Dargamitta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District , was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 341(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS.,’).

2. Sri Pathi Siva Prasad, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, a mere Resource Person engaged in facilitating Self-Help Group activities under the aegis of MEPMA. has been falsely implicated in Crime No.42 of 2026 of Dargamitta Police Station, though her role was purely administrative and under the directions of superior officers, without any personal gain or mens rea\ that the allegations are vague, omnibus, and founded only on hearsay without any scientific proof such as handwriting expert opinion, and the documentary evidence is already in safe custody of the Bank and MEPMA authorities leaving no scope for tampering; that the dispute essentially concerns procedural irregularities in routing loans between branches and internal group management, which are civil or regulatory in nature and cannot be criminalized; that the offences alleged carry punishment below seven years and custodial interrogation is unwarranted, especially when the Petitioner is ready to cooperate with investigation; that the complaint itself discloses no specific allegation against her and no loan amount was ever 3 credited to her account, coupled with an unexplained delay of nearly five months in lodging the FIR which casts serious doubt on its veracity; that the Petitioner is a respectable housewife and community worker with no criminal antecedents, deeply rooted in society, and the Petitioner undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, there is a strong likelihood that she may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

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

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. The material placed on record prima facie discloses that the Petitioner was working as a Resource Person under MEPMA and the specific allegations attributing a direct role in the alleged commission of offences are not clearly spelt out in the complaint. The accusation appears to be founded largely on documentary transactions, which are already in the custody of the concerned Bank and MEPMA authorities, thereby minimizing the possibility of 4 tampering evidence. The offences alleged punishable imprisonment of and, stage, custodial interrogation of the Petitioner does not appear to be indispensable for the purpose of investigation.

6. Further, the Petitioner is stated to be a woman, having no criminal antecedents, and has expressed her wiliingness to cooperate with the investigating agency. In the absence of any material indicating that she is likely to abscond or obstruct the investigation, and considering that the investigation can be effectively carried on by imposing appropriate conditions, this Court is satisfied that a case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner/Accused Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this No.1, with some stringent conditions.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions; i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to the executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall make herself available for investigation as and when required; shall appear before the iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 Station House Officer concerned once in a fortnight, i.e. . on 5 every second and fourth Saturday of each month between 10:00 A.M. and 05:00 P.M., until the filing of the charge sheet, iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned V. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat promise to any person case so as to dissuade acquainted with the facts of the him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court. Vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall if any, to the Investigating Officer. If she claims that she does not have passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. surrender, her passport, //TRUE COPY// SD/-U.SRIDEVI DEPUTY REGj^RAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Station House Officer, 2. Vakiti Pavani, Wife of Srinadh, Dargamitta Urban Police Station. Aged 36 years, Occ. Community Resident of Ambedkar Nagar, Durgamitta Organizer at MEMPA, M „ ellore City, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. (By RPAD) ^

3. One CC to SRI. PATHI SIVA PRASAD 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 5. One spare copy , Advocate [OPUC] High Court of A.P. [OUT] HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J pATED:25/08/2026 ! BAIL ORDER I CRLP NO. 4690 OF 2026 i ALLOWED 7^ Misaffl g -#c > < Sr .