lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT A FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6814 OF 2025 Betwee n : Gattem Nagababu, S/o. Gattem Satyanarayana, Aged 40 years, R/o.1- 51, O C colony, Pydikonda, Thondangi MandaI, Kakinada District - 533401. Petitioner/Accused-2 AND The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati, Through S.H.O. Tuni Police Station, Kakinada Distrl-ct Respondent Petition under sections 482 of BNSS (old 438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection wI'th FIR Dt. 09-04-2025, Tuni Police Station. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri Yanamala Nagendra, Advocate for the petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the court made the following; A APHCOIO330212025 EFHFiE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6814 OF 2025 Between : 1. Gattem Nagababu, S/o. Gattem Satyanarayana, Aged 40 years, R/o.1-51, O C colony, Pydikonda, Thondangi MandaI, KakI'nada District -533401. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati, Through S.H.O, Tuni Police Station, Kakinada District ...Respondent Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying`that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High CourtPleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR Dt. 09-04-2025, Tuni Police Station Counsel for the Petitioner: Yanamala Nagendra Counsel for the Respondent PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, [BNSS') is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 seeking anticipatory bail in crime No.4 of 2025 of Tuni Police Station, East Godavari District, regI|Stered for the OffenCeS T€_ - +I punishable under Sections under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act,1968 and A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act,I 2020. 2. The prosecution's case, in summary, is that on o9.04.2025 at about 12:30 PM, while the ProhibitI-On and Excise Sub-Inspector, Tuni, along with his staff, was conducting a vehicle check, they noticed A.1 traveling in an auto. Upon inspection, they found him in possession of six mica bags containing (1) Karjura Xtra Strong Beer (650 mI) -60 bottles, and (2) Kingfisher Strong Beer (650 ml) -60 bottles. Upon interrogation, A.1 confessed to the offence and stated that he intended to hand over the beer bottles to the petitioner/Accused No. 2 (A2). Al failed to produce any license or permit for the possession or sale of the beer bottles. Consequently, '{he above-mentioned crime was registered against the accused. 3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner/A.2 asserts that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; there is no record of the petitioner's involvement in any criminal activities; except the confessional statement said to have made by A.1, no other independent material has been collected showing the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the offence; the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and is willing to furnish sufficient sureties. 4. Sri G. Neelo{hpaI, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the investigation is not completed. 5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions' on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. 6. In Mah,-pa/ V. Ra/-esh7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on I (2020) 2 scc 118 \L--2' I-|* the evidentiary record, pr,-ma fac,'e or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused had committed the crime. 7. A Court doesn't need to give elaborate reasons while granting bail, mainly when the case is at the initial stage, and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystallised as such. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that except the A.1's confessional statement, no other material has been collected showing the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the offence. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not disputed the factual position. It is clear from the record that the petitioner was not secured at the scene of offence while he had the illicit liquor bottles. When ascertained fr6m the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he submits that according to his instructions, no previous criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner. 9. It is not the Prosecution's case that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigatjon'and is not avai[ab[e for the interrogation. There is no indication of a likelihood that the petitioner would abscond from the Cour{'s jurisdiction. The petitioner has expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The likelihood of levying accusations to harm or embarrass the Petitioner through potential arrest is not improbable. 10. The material on record suggests that the prosecution]s case is mainly based on the official witnesses. So, the release of the petitioner/A.2 may not cause hampering of investigation or tampering of witnesses. The petitioner is shown to be a permanent resident of Pydikonda, Kakinada District and there .is no possibility of his fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court. ll. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subjected to the trial's outcome. lt is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the tz2ZZ2 *`'*_seSi-`t -- 4 accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. Granting antl-cI-PatOry ba" to the petjtjoner would not impede the ongoing jnvestl-gation. 12. Upon careful review of the available material, as there is no risk of I-nterference with the ongoing investigation by the petitioner, this court finds that anticI|PatOry bail can be granted to the petitioner/A.2 under certain conditions: i. The petjtjoner/A.2 I-S dI-reCted to surrender before the stall-On House officer, Tuni PoII'Ce Stall-on, East Godavarj DjstrI'Ct, WI-thin two (02) weeks from today, and upon his surrender, he sha" be released on baI'I, on his furnI'Shjng personal bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) wl-th two sureties for the II-ke amount each, to the satl'sfactjon of station House offI-Cer COnCerned; and I'j. The petjtI'Oner shall cooperate with the I-nVeStjgation and make himself available for jnterrogatI-On by a police officer as and when requI-red. Furthermore, he I'S PrOhibI-ted from making any direct or jndjrect inducement, threat, or proml-se to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer. 13. It is expll-clltly clarl-fled that the observations made I-n thI'S Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decisI-On On the present application without I'ndjCatI'ng a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the observations I-n this order. pending miscellaneous applications, I-i any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.SRINIV I ASSISTAN For //TRUE COPY// SA RAJU ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER *^, ijiE\l To, 1, The XII AddI-tiOnaI District Judge ,-.I pithapuram. 2. The Station House officer, Tunj Poll'ce S[atI-On, East Godavarj Dis{rjct. 3. One CC to SRI. YANAMALA NAGENDRAAdvocate [opuc] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAP [OUT] 5. One spare copy KJ H[GH COURT TMR,J DATED : ll /07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.6814 of 2025 ALLOWED .L`-` :`-::`-.'`\` ` `` A EL luL \\\` %%l€*