In a criminal petition filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by Former Member of Parliament Dr. Manchu Mohan Babu seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest regarding a First Information Report (FIR) registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 140(1), 126(2), and 351(2) read with Sections 190 as well as 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
On 03-02-2026, two SFI leaders were travelling when more than 20 persons in three Innova vehicles obstructed them. The miscreants, claiming to be men of Manchu Mohan Babu and others, assaulted the SFI leaders with hands and legs, abused them, and forcibly kidnapped them into the vehicles. The incident took place in the presence of several student leaders, including respondent 2, who chased the vehicles but could not rescue the victims. Respondent 2 then approached the police station seeking immediate rescue of the kidnapped leaders and strict punishment for the accused.
The Court noted that the petitioner had directly approached this Court for pre-arrest bail without approaching the Sessions Judge first, which was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It was also noted that concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of BNSS should only be exercised when a petitioner establishes a special case or extraordinary circumstance. The Court said that the Supreme Court has delineated anticipatory bail as an exceptional protective remedy intended to secure personal liberty within carefully circumscribed parameters, rather than as a perpetual charter against arrest or criminal process.
Further, the Court said that while courts are empowered to impose appropriate conditions under Sections 438(2) and 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, restrictive or special conditions ought not to be imposed as a matter of routine but only where the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. Reference was made to the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157 wherein it was underscored that both anticipatory bail adjudication and criminal prosecution must rest upon legally admissible and credible material, rather than on political allegations or inadmissible confessional evidence.
The Court found that the injuries sustained by the victims were simple in nature and that there was no specific allegation that the petitioner was personally present at the scene or directly participated in the assault or kidnapping. It was noted that the petitioner was 78 years old, a former Member of the Rajya Sabha, a well-known film actor, and the founder of Sree Vidyanikethan Educational Institutions at Tirupati. The Court said that 17 witnesses had already been examined, and that the main accused along with several others had already been released on bail. It was noted that a Single Judge had previously granted interim protection to the Petitioner on 09-04-2026, which was extended from time to time.
The Court found no flight risk against the petitioner and said that if stringent conditions were imposed while granting pre-arrest bail, the ends of justice would be subserved. The Court found that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Hence, the petition was allowed, and the Court ordered that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum.
The operational conditions required the Petitioner to make himself available for investigation as and when required, not indulge in similar offences, and surrender his passport to the IO. Additionally, he was directed to appear before the SHO once a week until the chargesheet was filed, and he was strictly prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
