1 APHC010348732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7211/2025 Between: Bejawada Srinu, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BABUJI TENNETI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.155 of 2025 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Kothapeta, Dr B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, registered 2 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P Prohibition(Amendment) Act, 2020. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of reliable information, the Sub-Inspector of P & E, Kothapeta along with Mediator and staff had reached the scene of offence and found one person having one mica bag containing ID liquor in his right hand. Thereafter, in the presence of mediator the police inspected the mica handbag and found 5 liters of ID liquor in it. On questioning, the individual disclosed his identity (as Accused No.1) and stated that he had purchased the ID liquor from Accused No.2/petitioner; the ID liquor was seized and a case in Crime No. 155 of 2025 was registered against Accused Nos.1 and 2. 3. Sri Babuji Tenneti, 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. 4. Per contra, Ms Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not yet completed; there are 5 antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner/Accused No.2; if the petitioner were granted pre-arrest bail, he would repeat the same offence and urged to dismiss the bail application. 3 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. The prime allegation against the petitioner is that he is the supplier of the ID liquor. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are 5 antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner/Accused No.2. 7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioner. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is given to the petitioner/Accused to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned for passing appropriate orders for remand. The petitioner/Accused is permitted to make an appropriate application before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction for enlarging him on bail. On that application, the learned Magistrate concerned, is directed to consider the case on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.07.2025 TM 4