APHC010336652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6973/2025 Between: KAVALOLLA NARASIMHULU ALIAS RACHAKONDA PENCHALA NARASIMHULU, S/O RACHAKONDA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, GUNDAVOLU BC COLONY, GUNDAVOLU POST AND PANCHAYATH, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6973 of 2025 Dated 15.07.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused No.5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.10 of 2025 on the file of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 303 (2) read with 3(5), 49, 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity‘the BNS’) and Section 20(1)(d)(i)(a)(b) read with 20(1)(c) II, III, IV, X and Section 36(a)(b) read with 32-A of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Amendment Act, 2016 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.02.2025, at about 06.00 A.M., on credible information about illegal transportation of Red Sander logs, the Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, along with his staff and mediators reached Marlapudi Forest Section Range, Rapuru Highway Road near Guduru Palli, Nellore Forest Division, and found few persons standing along with their two motor vehicles and on seeing the police they tried to escape from the spot. The police chased and caught hold of four persons, but remaining persons escaped from the spot. On searching the surroundings, the police found 12 red sander logs. The 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6973 of 2025 Dated 15.07.2025 contraband along with two motor cycles was seized under cover of a mediators report and a case has been registered against the accused. 3. Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venkati, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he is sole breadwinner of his family; he was falsely implicated in this case and urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.5. 4. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not yet completed; if the petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail, he will repeat the same offence and urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.5 is the facilitator according to the case of the prosecution. The petitioner has introduced Accused Nos.7 to 10 to Accused Nos.1 to 4, who have allegedly cut the red sanders logs in the forest. There are specific allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to facilitating the purchase and transportation of red sanders logs which were already cut 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6973 of 2025 Dated 15.07.2025 down by Accused Nos.1 to 4. The fact that the learned Single Judge of this Court, in Crl.P.No.4006 of 2025, enlarged Accused No.9 on pre- arrest bail is not a ground to consider the case of the petitioner on the principle of parity because the specific alleged role played by the petitioner/Accused No.5 is altogether different from Accused Nos.6 to 10. The principle of parity cannot be applied in this case, as Accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested and have already been enlarged on bail. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is entitled for release on bail on the principle of parity as the main Accused were enlarged on bail by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In this regard, it is relevant to comprehend the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, relied on by the prosecution in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana1,wherein at paragraph Nos.25 and 26 it is held as under regarding the applicability of the principle of parity: “25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17) “17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, 1(2021) 6 SCC 230 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6973 of 2025 Dated 15.07.2025 therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.” 26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [PravinbhaiHirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [KhetabhaiParbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with SidhdhrajsinhBhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [SiddhrajsinhBhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was “assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)”. Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law.” 8. However, in the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Ram Singh v. State of U.P.2, relied on by the prosecution, it is held that parity cannot be drawn while considering the bail application of co-accused. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there are no merits to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.5. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner/Accused No.5 to surrender before the learned Jurisdiction Magistrate and move an appropriate application for his 22023 SCC OnLine All 3199 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6973 of 2025 Dated 15.07.2025 release. On that application, the learned Jurisdiction Magistrate is directed to consider the case on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.07.2025 RSI 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.6973 of 2025 Dated 15.07.2025 93 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6973 of 2025 Date:15.07.2025 RSI