i, [3521] lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: _ I;l\ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO < CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7060 OF 2025 Between : 1. Irri Lakshmipathi Naidu, S/o I Chinna Appal Naidu, Aged about 27 years, Driver, R/o D. No. 1-49, Rajugaripalli Village, Devalacheruvu rI Post and Panchayat, Mokala Cheruvu Mandal, Annamayya District. 2. RangaIIa Sudhakar, S/o Late R Kotanna, Aged about 45 years, R/o D. No.1-317b, Sompalli Village, Post & Panchayath, Molakalacheruvu MandaI, Annamaya District. Petitioner/Accused No.1 & 2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Couit of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. Respondent Petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavI-I fI-led in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioners who was .. arrayed as Accused No. 1 & 2 on bail in connection with Crime.No. 23 of 2025 on the file of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District. The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petit]-on and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Advocate for the petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the court made the following. I .--`,_± APHCO10341782025 iiiET IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE pRE'-SENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7060/2025 Betwee n I lrri Lakshmipathi Naidu, and Others AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI [3521] .HPETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLA]NANT Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for brevity £the Cr.P.C.I) Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Crime No.23 - of 2025 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303 (2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short !the BNS), Section 49, 61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short lthe BNS), Section 20(1)(d)(i)(a) r/w 20(1)(c) Ii, iii, iV, X, 36(a) r/w 32A of the AP Forest Amendments Act, 2016. 2. The case of the prosecution isthat, on o6.06.2025 at about ll:00 p.m., based on reliable information, a police team proceeded to the scene of offence near Chowdasamudram. Using dragon light illumination, they observed a motorcycle and a few individuals standing nearby in a suspicious manner. Upon noticing the police presence, the individuals attempted to flee, and abandoning the motorcycle. However, with the active assistance of the staff, the police team successfully apprehended four persons at the spot. Upon inspection, they recovered 48 reci`+sanders logs and a Hero Passion Pro motorcycle. During interrogation, the apprehended persons confessed in engaging in red sanders smuggling due to financial difficulties. They disclosed their connection with one Sayad Althaf of Karnataka, who, along with his brother-in-law Babu and associate Guriginjakunta Veera Amruthya @ Amrutha Naidu, was coordinating the illegal procurement anc] transportation of RS logs. Lakshmipathi Naidu acted as an intermediary, while Amrutha Naidu arranged labourers to cut and collect Red Sander logs from reserved forest ```. ve.- -.,:,Sap areas. pursuant to AlthafJs -Instructions, red sander logs were regularly transported using vehicles sent by him. ln the present incident, 48 red sander logs had been procured and dumped at a designated location, awaiting further transportation. However, following Althaf's arrest by the Karnataka Police, Lakshmipathi Naidu decided to sell the logs independently and contacted One Rangalla Sudhakar, who then involved the other two accused. While the accused were inspecting the dumped red sander logs, the police apprehended them at the scene, seized property, arrested accused, and a case was registered against them. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the pet-ltioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondenVState. Perused the material on record. 4. Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, the learned counsel for the petit'IOnerS/accused Nos.1 and 2, submits that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 had not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are sole bread winners of their family and they Were arrested on o6.06.2025. Since then, they have been in judicial custody. Hence, he prays that the petitioners be enlarged on bail. 5. Per cot,fro, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the investigation is not completed; if the .+? f' t€F<rgr _ _ Petitioners are enlarged on bail, they would not be available for the investigation and they would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. As per the case of the prosecution, petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is alleged to be the organizer of the offenc'e. He is said to supply red sander logs to buyers and engage cooII'eS tO Cut down the red Sander trees and transport the logs. Under the instructI'OnS Of accused No.1, another accused, Amrutha Naidu, allegedly used to secure coolies, take them to the restricted reserve forest, and assist in the procurement, cuttI-ng, and transportation Of red Sander logs to a designated road point. Thus, accused No.1 is alleged to have played a key role in the red sanders smuggling operation. Accused No.5, who is described as the kingpin, has been arrested. 7. The alleged role of petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is that he attempted to procure buyers for the red sander logs. This Court, in Crl.P.No.7194 of 2025 dated 18.07.2025, granted bail to accused Nos.3 and 4 with certain conditions. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 06.06.2025 and have been in judicial custody for the past 52 days. 8. ln view of the specific overt acts attributed to petitioner No.1/accused No.1, and considering the gravity and nature of the allegations against him, \``| I___-_ ___|J this court is of the view that there are no merits in the petition filed by petitioner No.1/accused No.1. Accordingly, the petition as against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is dismissed. 9. However, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations against petitioner No.2/accused No.2, his alleged role in the offence, and the period of detention already undergone by him, this Court is inclined to enlarge petitioner No.2/accused No.2 on bail. 10. [n the result, the criminal pe{ition` is partly allowed dismissing the petition against the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 while granting bail to petitioner No.2/accused No.2, with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 `shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two :ureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate for Special Court of Trial Cases of Red Sanders Offences, Tirupati. ii. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer, RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. a ' szgive- -` _ iii. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh, without prior permission from the Investigating Officer. iv. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petI-tiOner No.2/Accuse:d No.2 shall cooperate with the investigating officer l'n further investigation Oof the case and shall make -himself available for interrog'ation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY ForJ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICEk Tol 1. The Judicial First-Class Magistr?te for Special Court of Trail Cases of Red Sanders Offences, TirLlpati. 2. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Tirupa{i. 3. The Station House Officer, RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 4. One CC to SRl. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court ofA.P., Amaravati_ ` _ [OUT]. 6. One'spare copy \`-- -` HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED : 28/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7060 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWED _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I. `,