APHC010167312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3601/2025 Between: Komali Ramanjaneyulu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the BNSS, is filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/A1 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.92 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravarm South, East Godavari District. 2. The above said crime was registered against the petitioner herein and another for the offences punishable under Sections 7-B read with 8-A and 8-B of the A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act,2020. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 10.02.2025 at 08.00 a.m., the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rajamahendravaram 2 along with his staff and mediators and rushed to coconut garden in Bangala thota infront of poultry farm the road leads to Srirampuram to Srikrishnapatnam and found the accused persons. On seeing the police party, the accused escaped from the spot. They verified the place and found 60 liters of I.D. Liquor and 2000 liters of FJ Wash and the same was seized under the cover of mediators report. 4. Heard. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in similar facts of case in Criminal Petition No.1437 of 2022, dated 10.03.2022, granted anticipatory bail on the ground that the police did not apprehend the accused at the scene of offence. Although, it is stated that the police have identified the said person as the petitioner therein, there is no valid basis for the said identification. Therefore, the very identity of the person who ran away from the scene of offence is in serious dispute. He further submits that in the light of the above decision, the present Criminal Petition is liable to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the 3 ground that investigation is not completed and the petitioner herein had involved in six other crimes. 7. In view of the involvement of the petitioner herein in six other crimes, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. _____________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Dated:21.04.2025. Asr 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Petition No.3601 of 2025 Dated: 21.04.2025 Asr