The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently delivered a nuanced judgment on anticipatory bail in a financial misappropriation case, distinguishing between the roles of co-accused spouses. While denying relief to the husband allegedly involved in the conspiracy, the Court granted bail to the wife, holding that she was not connected to the business transactions and had family responsibilities to attend to.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from Crime No. 69/2026 registered at Madanapalle I Town UPS, Madanapalle, Annamayya District, against four accused for offences under:
- Sections 316(5), 318(4), and 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
- Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
The complainant, a business owner, alleged that Accused No. 1 (A1), his manager, misappropriated Rs. 29,88,710 and transferred the amounts to the bank accounts of Accused Nos. 2 to 4 (A2 to A4) in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Key Facts
- A1 was the complainant’s manager and allegedly misappropriated the funds.
- A2 (Gowri Imrankhan) and A3 (Shabina @ Gowri Shabina Khanam) are husband and wife, respectively.
- A3 is a housewife with no alleged connection to the business transactions.
- The prosecution opposed bail, arguing that A4 had not yet been arrested and that verification of all accused accounts was necessary.
Procedural History
- Crime No. 69/2026 registered on the file of Madanapalle I Town UPS for the aforementioned offences.
- Crl.M.P. Nos. 100/2026 and 89/2026: Applications for pre-arrest bail filed by A2 and A3, respectively, before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, were dismissed.
- Crl.P. Nos. 4527/2026 and 4626/2026: Present petitions filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners (A2 and A3)
- A2 and A3 are husband and wife, with A3 having no involvement in the business transactions.
- A3 has family responsibilities, including the care of her children.
- The allegations of breach of trust and entrustment of money pertain solely to A1 and the complainant.
For the Respondent (State)
- The prosecution opposed bail
Case Details
Smt Shabina @ Gowri Shabina Khanam and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Date
05 June 2026
Case Number
Criminal Petition Nos. 4527 and 4626 of 2026
Bench
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma
Counsel
Pet: Jitendra Kanyalur
Res: K. Sandeep, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Frequently Asked Questions
Section 482 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. In this case, the Court used this provision to grant anticipatory bail to A3 while denying relief to A2, balancing the interests of justice with the need for a thorough investigation.
The Court considered the following factors in granting bail to A3:
- Lack of involvement in the business transactions.
- Family responsibilities, including the care of her children.
- No direct evidence linking her to the alleged conspiracy.
- The prosecution’s failure to demonstrate her active role in the offence.
Yes, the Court in this case denied anticipatory bail to A2 primarily because the investigation was still ongoing and verification of accounts was necessary. The prosecution successfully argued that granting bail at this stage might adversely affect the investigation, particularly since A4 had not yet been arrested.
The Court imposed the following conditions on A3 in this case:
- Execution of a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like sum.
- Furnishing of permanent residential address and identity particulars to the police within 15 days of release.
- Cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with witnesses.
- Restriction on leaving India without the Court’s permission.
These conditions are typical in anticipatory bail orders to ensure compliance and prevent flight risk.
The Court distinguished between A2 and A3 based on their roles in the alleged offence:
- A2 was alleged to be part of the conspiracy and had recorded financial transactions linking him to the offence.
- A3, being a housewife with no involvement in the business, was granted bail due to lack of evidence and family responsibilities.
This highlights that Courts may grant bail to co-accused who are not directly involved in the offence.
