The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that anticipatory bail cannot be denied merely because an offence is alleged under a new penal code, especially when the investigation is in its early stages and no prima facie evidence connects the accused to the crime. This order reinforces the principle that personal liberty must be protected unless there is clear, material evidence of involvement.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tumma Deepa, Wife of M. Ramarao, aged 43, residing at D.No.26-28-125/A, A.T.Agraharam, Guntur, Guntur District, is accused in Crime No. 31 of 2026 registered at Narsaraopet I Town Police Station, Palnadu District. She is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 316(5), 318(3), 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to fraud, misappropriation, and forgery in connection with Self Help Group (SHG) loans.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is employed as City Mission Manager, Narsaraopet, and has no direct role in the management or operation of any SHG.
- The alleged loans were sanctioned in favour of SHGs, and the disbursed amounts were credited directly to the SHG members’ bank accounts.
- The SHGs in question are no longer functional, and there is no documentary or financial trail linking the petitioner to any withdrawal or misuse of funds.
- The petitioner denies any involvement in the preparation of documents, signing of loan applications, or handling of money.
- No incriminating material such as forged signatures, manipulated records, or digital evidence has been disclosed by the prosecution at this stage.
- The petitioner has not been arrested and is not in custody.
Procedural History
- 2026: Crime No. 31 of 2026 registered at Narsaraopet I Town Police Station.
- 16.03.2026: The same High Court granted interim protection to Accused No. 2 in Crl.P.No.1751 of 2026, directing police to comply with Section 35(3) of BNSS.
- 30.03.2026: Petitioner files Crl.P.No.2362 of 2026 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner/Accused
- The petitioner is falsely implicated with ulterior motives.
- She has no connection to the SHGs or their financial transactions.
- No property was entrusted to her, negating any claim of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation.
- The investigation is at a nascent stage with no material evidence against her.
- She seeks protection similar to that granted to Accused No. 2 in a connected case.
For the Respondent/State
- The investigation is ongoing and the money trail has not yet been fully traced.
- The nature of the alleged offences is serious and involves financial fraud.
- Granting anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation.
- The prosecution opposes bail until the probe is complete.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail to protect herself from arbitrary arrest and custodial interrogation in connection with Crime No. 31 of 2026.
The Legal Issue
Can anticipatory bail be granted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, when the investigation is at a nascent stage and no prima facie evidence establishes the accused’s complicity in offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle that anticipatory bail is a safeguard against arbitrary arrest, especially where the allegations are vague and unsupported by material evidence. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI to argue that police must follow Section 35(3) of BNSS, which mandates a reasoned approach before arrest. He emphasized that the petitioner’s role as City Mission Manager is administrative and unrelated to SHG fund disbursement. No entrustment of property, no forged documents, and no financial trail connect her to the alleged offences.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor contended that the investigation is still in its initial phase and that the money trail, digital records, and bank statements have not been fully examined. He argued that the offences under BNSS are serious and involve large-scale financial fraud, and that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. He did not dispute the petitioner’s employment status but insisted that the probe must proceed without restrictions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation. It noted that the prosecution had not produced any specific evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged acts of forgery, misappropriation, or fraud. The Court observed that the loan amounts were disbursed directly to SHG accounts, and there was no allegation that the petitioner had access to or control over those accounts.
"The complicity of the Petitioner prima facie is not established."
The Court reiterated the binding precedents in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which hold that arrest is not automatic even for non-bailable offences, and that police must satisfy the requirements of Section 35(3) of BNSS before resorting to custody. The Court emphasized that the purpose of anticipatory bail is not to obstruct justice but to prevent abuse of the arrest power.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had not been arrested, and there was no indication of flight risk or tampering. The prosecution’s claim that the investigation was at a nascent stage was accepted as a valid reason to defer arrest, not to deny protection.
The Court held that the petitioner’s request for protection was not only reasonable but necessary to uphold the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21, especially where the allegations lack prima facie support.
The Verdict
The petition is allowed. The Court directs that:
- The Investigating Officer may continue the investigation in accordance with law.
- In the event of any coercive action against the petitioner, the police must strictly comply with Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
- If custodial interrogation becomes necessary, the Investigating Officer must seek prior permission from the Court and follow due process.
- All pending applications are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Arrest Is Not Automatic in Nascent Investigations
- Practitioners must argue that arrest under BNSS requires more than mere allegations; there must be material evidence or a reasonable basis to suspect involvement.
- Where the investigation is in its early stages and no incriminating documents or digital trails exist, anticipatory bail should be granted as a matter of right.
- Courts must not defer to the prosecution’s assertion that "the probe is ongoing" as a blanket reason to deny protection.
Section 35(3) BNSS Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- Police cannot bypass Section 35(3) even in serious financial fraud cases.
- The requirement to record reasons before arrest applies equally to all accused, regardless of status or role.
- Failure to comply with Section 35(3) renders any arrest illegal and subject to challenge under Section 482.
Prima Facie Evidence Must Be Concrete, Not Speculative
- Allegations based on association, position, or proximity are insufficient.
- The Court must examine whether the accused had opportunity, access, or control over the alleged misappropriated funds.
- Absence of financial link or entrustment negates offences under Sections 316, 336, and 340 BNSS.
