IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR MONDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE : PRESENT: ``ir THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8041 OF 2025 [3521 I -\ `_....( Betwee n : Dara Boina Prasad, S/o. D. Anjiah, aged about 54 years, Properietor i and G.P.A holder of Akshay Caps Firm R/o. PIot No. 145/146, Bhavani Nagar, Mallapur, Hyderabad, Telangana State Petitioner/Un-Numbered Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. Respondent/Complainant Petition under section 482 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated Ion the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner / un Numbered Accused in the event of his Arrest in connectI'On With the Crime No. 44 of 2025 on the fI-le Of Prohibition and Excise Police Slat,Ion, Palakolu, West Godavari District. The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon heaTjng the arguments of Sri NAGA RAJU KOLLATI Advocate for the petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the court made the following. I-i- 6 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No:8041/2025 I ORDER: ~_Gri .The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity tthe BNSS') by the petitioner/Accused for gran{I-ng Of Pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.44 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Palakolu,. West Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34(a) 6fA.P. Excise Act,1968. I 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.06.2025 at approximately ll:55 p.m., upon receivI-ng Credible information from the District Prohibition & Excise Officer, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, and the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise (Enforcement), Kakinada, regarding the prevalence of spurious liquor manufacturing in Amalapuram and its suspected extension to Palakole Town, a coordinated operation was initiated under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of.Prohibition & Excise, Eluru, and other senior officials. i Acting on said intelligence, on 24.06.2025 at about 01:00 a.m., the Station House Officer, Palakole Prohibition & Excise Station, along with the Excise Inspector, ES Task Force, Bhimavaram, and Enforcement Wing, EIuru, conducted a surprise inspection at premises-bearing D.No.25-6-8,llth Ward, Sham-bhunipeta, Palakole Town, in the presence of mediators. Upon arrival, i---..r.-_1 the departmental staff observed one indI'Vidual standing at the entrance of the said premises who, upon noticing the officials, appeared perturbed and 3 attempted to flee. He was apprehended and identified himself as Puli Roshani SheetaI. He admitted ownership and possession of the premises and b confessed to manufacturing spurious liquor therein. The officials served search proceedings and entered the premises, which comprised two portions wl'th three rooms each under RCC roofing, enclosed by a compound wall and facing east. During the search, the Excise Officials discovered in the northern POrtiOn'S middle room Various materials indI'CatiVe Of ilII-Cit liquor Production, including an electric cap sealing machine, plastic cans containing spirit, cara\mel, flavouring agents, and numerous empty bottles and corks. upon interrogation, the accused disclosed that he was engaged in the preparation of spurious liquor by mixing spirit with caramel and flavouring agents, bottling the mixture, sealing it, and distributing it for sale. i: The seized materials included 100 liters of spirit in four 25-litre white plastic cans, 30 liters of spir'l{ in six 5-litre cans labeled "Hand Rub", Glycerine, caramel, artificial flavouring agents, Multiple empty plastic bottles and branded corks, One electric sealing machine, A Vivo V40 Pro mobile phone. The accused further revealed the involvement of several co-conspirators, namely Borra Satya Apparao @ Sattibabu, Nurukurthi Srinivasarao @ Yanam Srinu, Pilla Srinivas @ Venkanna, and Ruttala Srinivas @ Kalam, AbduI Kalam. He stated that the operation was a joint venture wherein spirit, bottles, caps, and labels were procured from Hyderabad through Ruttala Srinivas and transported via APSRTC Cargo. --i.i _ _ _ _ _ \ 4 5. The spurious liquor was manufactured at the said premises and distributed to Amalapuram and other regions, with. each bottle costing Rs.60/- .5 to produce an.d sold ?t Rs.70/-, yielding a profit margin of Rs.10/-per bottle. The accused admitted {o receiving multiple consignments of spirit and other materials and detailed the process of manufacturing and distribution. He acknowledged that the quality of the liquor was substandard and that the cap sealing machine was obtained from Pilla SrI-niVaS for further Production. The operation was conducted in collusion with the aforementioned individuals, with materials sourced from a resident +of Makavarapupalem, presently residing in Hyderabad. ln the presence of mediators, samples were drawn from the seized materials for chemical analysis, including spirit, glycerine, caramel, flavouring agents, and loose liquids. Each sample was appropriately labeled and sealed, and a rough sketch of the scene'was prepared and signed by the officers, mediators, and accused. The seized property and samples were taken into custody for further legal proceedings, and the accused was formally arrested under the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The mediatorsJ report was duly drafted and concluded by 3:30 p.m., on the same day. 6. Mr.Naga Raju Kollati, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and he is ready' to abide any conditions that may `_1 t` -i 5 be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. t> 7. Percor7fra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still undervay and several material witnesses remain to be examined. lt is contended that if the petitioner I'S released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. The learned Assistant _-_--.-`---____- -- Public Prosecutor submits that there are two antecedents against the _ -.-_ `-.I.. --. .-.----` .--_-__".--~.-.._ . petitioner in Crime No.12 of 2022 and Crime No.37 of 2025. ln view of the -...-.-...` .\`--`_.- foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 9. Based on the confession of one. accused, the petitioner herein is --_` arraigned as accused. Except the said confession given during the cus.tpdy of ~-. --. ,. --._~I-I .. .+~ ` _ Prohibition and Excise Qfficjals,,_rlO~O.±ber_ incriminating mate_ria] iS aVa]|Iable --____--__`-- . against the Petitioner, so far. The Petitioner is pe_rm.anent resident of Bhavani Nagar, MaIIapur, Hyderabad. He alleged that due to political rivilary he was arraigned as accused in this case. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner and his alleged role played in this xp~ -l- ease, this court deems it fit to grant pro-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused. 10. ln the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the fo!iowing conditions: 6 i, ln the event of his arrest, the petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of + Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Five Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police offlcja]s. ii. The petitioner/Accused shall make himself available for investigation as and when required. iii. The petitioner/Accused shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecu'tion witnesses. iv. The petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The petitioner/Accused shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The petitioner/Accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. I= //TRUE COPY// / } - DEPu-ry ft Eed¥J5Aft ?1grl`-,K_.I_ATA RAG sECT£oN OFFl6ER For.`..__ To, 1. The Station House Officer, The prohibition and Excise Police Station, Palakolu, West Godavari District. b 2. One CC to SRl. NAGA RAJU KOLLATI Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court ofA.P., Amaravati [OUT]. 4. One spare copy HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: ll/08/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8041 of 2025 ALLOWED + + \