APHC010435312025 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: 8709/2025 Between: 1. BUDDIGA DURGA PRASAD, S/O. DEVUDU, AGE 30 YEARS R/O. D.NO. 58-17-11, SANJEEVAYYA NAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM E.G.DIST-533 101. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise (North) Station, Rajamahendravaram Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VEERLA SATEESH KUMAR 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. 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 86 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram North, 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 on 08-04-2025 at about 6 a.m. at road margin, opposite to house bearing D.No. 87-17-11/2, Sanjeeva Nagar, Rajamahendravaram Urban, the excise officials along with mediators found and arrested accused No. 1 while he was in possession of 12 liters of I.D. liquor. It is the further case of prosecution that accused No. 2 is the supplier and the present petitioner-accused No. 3 is the owner of the seized contraband. 3. Mr. Veerla Sateesh Kumar, 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 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 3 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 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. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 3 is that he was indulged in dealing with 12 liters of I.D. liquor. The role of the present petitioner has come into light on the confession of accused No. 1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are nine adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. As per the mediators' report and the version of the prosecution, the petitioner is the owner of I.D. liquor. 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 for commission of non-bailable offence as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab 1 and Sushila 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 4 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. 3 to surrender before the jurisdictional magistrate 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 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8709 OF 2025 Date:29.08.2025 JSK