Registration Of FIR Against Doctor Following His Writ Petition Against Police Harassment Suggests 'Counter-Blast': Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail

"While the [Writ Petition] is pending adjudication, on 17.05.2026, the instant FIR in Crime No.76 of 2026 was lodged against the petitioner herein... the very roping of the provisions of special enactment [BUDS Act] is per se illegal." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 14, 2026, held that the registration of a criminal case against a professional shortly after they have initiated legal proceedings against police authorities indicates a "counter-blast," warranting the protection of pre-arrest bail.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed that where a petitioner is already a de-facto complainant in a related fraud case and has approached the High Court against police harassment, the subsequent naming of that person as an accused requires close judicial scrutiny.

The petitioner, Dr. Rayagada Santosh Patnaik, a final-year D.M. Nephrology resident, alleged he was cheated of ₹1.06 crore by an individual (Accused No. 2) under the guise of investment returns. After the petitioner filed an FIR against the fraudster and a subsequent Writ Petition (W.P. No. 14535 of 2026) alleging harassment by the I-Town Police, a criminal case was registered against the doctor himself under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS) and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 528 of the BNSS given the suspicious timing of the FIR. The court was also called upon to determine if the petitioner, being a victim of a financial scam himself, could be classified as a "Deposit Taker" under the BUDS Act.

Court Highlights Suspicious Sequence Of Litigation And Police Action

The Court meticulously noted the chronology of events leading to the criminal petition. It observed that the petitioner had first approached the police on May 7, 2026, resulting in an FIR against the actual perpetrators on May 11. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition on May 14, 2026, arraying the police personnel of I-Town Police Station as respondents to curb alleged harassment.

FIR Against Doctor Appears To Be A Retaliatory Measure

The Bench pointed out that while the doctor's Writ Petition against the police was still pending adjudication, the authorities lodged the impugned FIR (Crime No. 76 of 2026) against him on May 17, 2026. This sequence strongly suggested that the criminal case against the doctor was initiated as a "counter-blast" to his legal challenges against the police department.

"While the [Writ Petition] is pending adjudication, on 17.05.2026, the instant FIR in Crime No.76 of 2026 was lodged against the petitioner herein."

Misapplication Of BUDS Act To A Victim Of Fraud

Justice Kuncheam took note of the petitioner’s contention that he was a victim who had borrowed money at high interest rates only to be cheated by Accused No. 2. The Court scrutinized the language of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019, specifically Section 3(b), to assess the petitioner’s status in the transaction.

Doctor Does Not Qualify As A 'Deposit Taker' Under Special Enactment

The Court found merit in the argument that the petitioner could not be categorized as a "Deposit Taker" under the special enactment. It held that roping in the provisions of such a stringent special law when the primary ingredients are missing is legally unsustainable at the prima facie stage.

"The applicability of the said provisions are in question, more particularly, in view of the specific language enunciated under Section 3(b) of the said Act, i.e., the petitioner will not come under the purview of Deposit Taker."

Ambiguity In Allegations And Punishment Threshold

The Bench further observed that most of the offenses alleged against the petitioner, excluding the BUDS Act charges, carry a maximum punishment of seven years. Given the ambiguity surrounding the applicability of Section 21 of the BUDS Act to the petitioner's conduct, the Court found it fit to exercise its discretion in favor of liberty.

Maintainability Of Bail Petition Under New Procedural Laws

The Court clarified that the provisions of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., are concurrent in nature. Citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the High Court affirmed that the petition for pre-arrest bail was fully maintainable.

"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner herein/Accused No.1 on certain condition."

The High Court allowed the criminal petition, granting pre-arrest bail to the doctor subject to a bond of ₹20,000 and two sureties. The Court imposed several conditions, including a requirement to appear before the Station House Officer twice a month and a prohibition on leaving the state without permission. The ruling emphasizes that the judiciary will remain vigilant against the misuse of criminal machinery as a retaliatory tool against professionals who seek legal remedies against police misconduct.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2026