k [3521 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8360 OF 2025 45' 'Between: Pasupuleti Ravi Kumar, Aged about 60 years, R/o. Flat No.8088, M.V.V! City, P.M. Palem, Near Cricket Stadium, Pothinamallayapalem Visakhapatnam District, A.P. Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent Petition Section Section 482 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Police to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 64/2025 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam District. under 438 of Cr.P.C and The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Advocate for the Petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the Court made the following I APHC010414152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] 0!^ TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8360/2025 Between: Pasupuleti Ravi Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Gollapalli Maheswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused for granting pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.64 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity ‘the Act’). ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 25.07.2025, the Sub-Inspector of Prohibition & Excise Station, Pendurthy, received information regarding the 2 L Crl.P.No.8360 of. Dated 19.08.20. illegal possession of liquor. He secured the to the petitioner’s house, and conducted respondent police seized a total of 67 liquor bottles and the report, implicated the petitioner as the accused in the said crime. presence of mediators, proceeded a search. During the search, the as per the contents of 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. learned Assistant 4. Sri G. Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel for the that the petitioner has not committed petitioner, submits any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case. He is the soie breadwinner of his famiiy. He is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court, it is urged to grant pre-arrest baii to the petitioner. 5. Per contra. Ms. P. Akhiia, the iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of baii stating that some more materiai witnesses have to be examined; investigation is not compieted; if the petitioner is eniarged on baii, he wouid not be avaiiabiefor the investigation the clutches of law. and he would escape from However, it is submitted that there antecedents against the petitioner, and requested to are no adverse pass appropriate orders. 6. As seen from the record, the investigating Officer, petitioner, went to his house bottles, which were purchased from another years of age and a resident of Visakhapatnam. The learned in the absence of the conducted a search, and seized 67 liquor State. The petitioner is about 60 Assistant Public 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.8360of 2025 Dated 19.08.2025 Prosecutor submits that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 67 liquor bottles were intended for the personal use of the petitioner’s family 7. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, and his alleged role in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions. \ 8. In the result, the Criminal. Petition is allowed with the following conditions: In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only), each with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; I. The Petitioner/Accused shall make himself available for II. investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once a week i.e., every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. 4 Crl.P.No.8360 of. Dated 19.08.20. The Petitioner/Accused shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. V. SD/-B.CHITTI JOSEPH assistant R SECTION OFFICER S'iTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Station House Officer, Prohibition Visakhapatnam District. 2. OneCCto SRI. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO ^ '^'■osecutor (AP) High Court of A. 4. One spare copy & Excise Station, Pendurthy, Advocate [OPUC] P., Amaravati HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:19/08/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8360 of 2025 ALLOWED