Custodial Interrogation Not Automatically Necessary: AP High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Relatives In Rs 3 Crore Fraud Case, Denies Relief To 'Kingpin'

Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has partly allowed an application for pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the necessity of custodial interrogation must be backed by substantial grounds rather than mere assertions by the prosecution.

A single-judge bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma held that while the alleged "kingpin" of a financial fraud is not entitled to discretionary relief, his relatives cannot be denied bail solely on the grounds of investigation requirements when the dispute appears to have civil overtones.

The petitioners (A1 to A6) were booked under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), following allegations that they induced the de facto complainant to invest Rs. 3 crores with promises of lucrative returns. It was alleged that the accused misappropriated the funds for personal use, unlawfully mortgaged the complainant’s agricultural land, and issued death threats when questioned. The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), after their initial bail plea was dismissed by the Sessions Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS. The court was specifically called upon to determine if the nature of the allegations and the pending civil litigations between the parties warranted the protection of the petitioners from arrest during the investigation.

Existence of Pending Civil Litigation Between Parties

The Court took serious note of the submission that the dispute between the parties was already the subject of civil litigation. It was observed that Original Suits (O.S. No. 91 of 2025 and O.S. No. 14 of 2025) were already pending before the Principal District Judge, Nellore, involving the same parties. The bench noted that the petitioners characterized the matter as essentially civil in nature, arising out of business transactions.

Court Weighs Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation

In evaluating the prayer for A2 to A6, who are the wife and relatives of the third accused, the Court found that the prosecution failed to provide a compelling reason for their arrest. The bench observed that the mere claim that custodial interrogation is necessary for the completion of the investigation is insufficient to deny the liberty of the accused in the absence of substantial evidence linking them to the core of the criminal conspiracy.

"Except contending that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary for completion of the investigation, no substantial grounds have been placed before this Court to justify denial of the relief of anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.2 to 6 (A.2 to A.6)."

Distinction Between Principal Accused and Relatives

The Court drew a sharp distinction between the role of the first petitioner (A1) and the other petitioners. While the relatives (A2 to A6) were found eligible for relief due to the lack of specific roles attributed to them in the business transactions, the Court viewed the allegations against A1 with greater severity. The bench categorized A1 as the "principal accused" and "kingpin" of the alleged fraudulent scheme.

"Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the respective accused, this Court is of the view that the prayer of petitioner Nos.2 to 6 (A.2 to A.6) for grant of pre-arrest bail deserves consideration. However, in so far as petitioner No.1 (A.1), who is alleged to be the principal accused, this Court is not inclined to extend the said relief."

Conditions For Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail

While granting bail to A2 to A6, the Court imposed several conditions, including the execution of bail bonds for Rs. 20,000 each with two sureties. The Court directed the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation agency and prohibited them from interfering with the investigation process or influencing witnesses. Furthermore, all petitioners were restrained from leaving the country without prior permission from the concerned court.

The High Court concluded that the request for anticipatory bail was acceptable for petitioners A2 to A6, whereas the prayer for A1 did not merit consideration due to the gravity of the allegations. The petition was thus partly allowed, providing a three-week window for the protected petitioners to appear before the jurisdictional court to execute their bonds.

Date of Decision: 05 June 2026