Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30033 (AP)

Nargani Srinu alias Bangaru Srinu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/8695/2025 · 2025-08-28

Y Lakshmana Rao

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010432012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8695/2025 Between: 1. NARGANI SRINU ALIAS BANGARU SRINU, S/O BANGARAYYA, R/O RAGHUNADHAPURAM VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner-accused No. 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 335 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South, East Godavari District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7-B read with Section 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. 2. Case of the prosecution is that accused No. 1 was found and arrested while he was in possession of 5 liters of I.D. liquor. It is the further case of prosecution that the petitioner-accused No. 2 is the supplier of the contraband. 3. Mr. Devasri Roshan K, 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 memberof his family and he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr.Neelotphal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby 3 hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner- accused No. 2 is that he was indulged in dealing with 5 liters of I.D. liquor. The role of the present petitioner has come into light on the confession given by accused No. 1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are four adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner inasmuch as it would amount to giving a license for the person against whom serious allegations are levelled and it would also amount to giving a shield or protection to the person against whom accusation is well established as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of Delhi2. Hence, there are no merits in the criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner-accused No. 2 to surrender before the jurisdictional magistrate 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 4 within a period of one (1) week from today and move an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Court concerned. On such surrender and on moving of such application, the jurisdictional Court concerned is directed to dispose of the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two days by giving due opportunity to learned Public Prosecutor concerned for hearing. ________________________ Date: 29.08.2025, DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J JSK 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8695 OF 2025 Date: 29.08.2025 JSK