[?52ii:. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8305 OF 2025 Between: A.J. Bilal, S/o. A.R. Jailabdeen, Aged about 38 years, R/o.D.No.2-72, Indira Nagar, Pudupeta, Nagari Town & Municipality, Chittoor District. Petitioner/Accused No.10 AND A The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Amaravathi. Respondent Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 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 pursuance of the Cr.No.l43 of 2025 on the file of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SUBHANI S M, Advocate for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the Court made the following: 2 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.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No. 143 of 2025 of , Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District registered against the petitioner/Accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b), 303(2), 317(4), 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public'Property Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘the PDPP Act’) and Section 4 and 21(4) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity, ‘the MMDR Act’). The case of the prosecution is that on 13.07.2025 at 6:00 AM, near the 2. Tirupati-Tiruttani Highway close to the Andhra Pradesh-Tamil Nadu border (Thadukupeta Panchayat, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District), the petitioner herein / Accused No. 10 along with others conspired to illegally transport sand purchased from Annamayya District. They misused government-issue d transportation bills to carry sand across state borders for illegal profit, violating Andhra Pradesh regulations. The sand was hidden under stone loads in tippers associated with Vel & Co Stone Crusher. During the transport to Tamil Nadu, the police intercepted A2 to A8 and seized 7 sand-loaded tippers carrying approximately 70 tons of sand worth ?1,05,000 and registered an FIR. 3 Mr.S.M.Subhani, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.10 3. contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police due to political vendetta. It is further submitted that petitioner/Accused No. 10 is permanent resident of Nagari Town & Municipality of Chittoor District and undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2025 and he has been in the judicial custody for the past 35 days. Further, basing on the alleged confession of Accused Nos.1 to 8, Section 111(2)(b) of BNS is added against A. the petitioner herein as if he also participated in the aforementioned crime and it is urged to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No. 10 on bail. 4. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the material portion of investigation is completed and two similar offences are registered against the petitioner herein, and urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No. 10 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. As seen from the record, the petitioner is a councilor of 11“" Ward of Nagari Municipality. He belongs to political party. He contends that because of the recent change in the political power, he was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2025. He was in judicial custody for the past 35 days. The role of the petitioner has come into light as Accused No.2 6. gave confession against the petitioner. The allegation herein is that he had illegally mined the sand. He transporting the sand beyond destination, of BNS is doubtfujjnasmuch two similar offences & 80 of 2025, it is not against the petitioner was unauthorizedly The applicability of Section 317(4) as he purchased the sand with bills. Even though are registered against the petitioners vide Crime Nos.23 a ground to dismiss the bail application for the that until the guilt is proved, the petitioner shall be reason presumed to be innocent. The only material against the petitioner is the co-accused’s confession, which. m terms of evidentiary value, is very weak and insufficient for opposing bail. 7. In this context, it js apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh' at Para Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under: 27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of tha r^i^u^nt cgnsiderations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The nnurtfi should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plaa of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political vendetta bv itself is not sufficient for , the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not iust look intn the, aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only when the court IS convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the court may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the olea of anticioatorv ^ The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta. are at war 53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges- (IV) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit ^ 2025 see Online sc 1157 5 by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is In tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively. In other words, a police statement of an accused which is In the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible bv virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused." In S.Bhargav Rddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh^, it is held that to invoke Section 111 of BNS, at least two charge sheets filed within the preceding ten years for invoking the provision related to organized crime and confession by co-accused alone cannot justify invocation of Section 111 without fulfilling statutory requirements. 8. 9. 8. 9. In view of the above expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, cconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case and his alleged role played in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No. 10 on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No. 10 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), with two sureties for the like each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari, Chittoor District, ii. The petitioner/Accused No. 10 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor sum 2 2025 (2)ALD587 6 District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court, iii. The petitioner/Accused No. 10 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The petitioner/Accused No. 10 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. IV. The petitioner/Accused No. 10 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall A make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating V. officer as and when required. The petitioner/Accused No. 10 shall not, directly or VI. 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. vii. The petitioner/Accused No. 10 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. 10. Accordinalv. the Criminal Petition is allowed. Sd/- U. SR! DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER For To, The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari The X Additional District & Sessions Judge:: Tirupati The Superintendent, Sub-Jail at Satyavedu, Tirupati District. The Station House Officer, Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District One CC to SRI. SUBHANI S M Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. KJ \ HIGH COURT DR.YLR.J DATED:21/08/2025 \ BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8305 of 2025 ALLOWED