APHC010440132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8773/2025 Between: THAMMISETTY VENKATA RAMESH, S/O THAMMISETTYLAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SRI SAI HARSHITA NILAYAM, OPPOSITE SRI CHAITANYA SCHOOL GANDHINAGAR 7TH LINECHIMAKURTHY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. - 523226 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati, Through SHO, Singarayakonda Police Station, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.KARTHIK SHAH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the 2 Petitioner/Accused No.18 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.45/2022 of Singarayakonda Police Station, Prakasham District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 143, 464, 465, 467, 471 and 420 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’), Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity ‘the IT Act’), Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 (for brevity ‘the MMDR Act’) and Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Conservation Rules, 1966. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.02.2022, at 04:35 hours, the accused No.1/Kodali Srinu, alleged to be the principal organizer, along with other unidentified individuals, was found unlawfully transporting granite blocks on National Highway 16, specifically at the Emergency Landing Area near Kanumalla Cross Road, Singarayakonda Village. The granite blocks were being conveyed in four lorries bearing registration numbers TN 04 AU 2961, TN 47 S 3990, TN 05 AS 3523, and TN 20 BM 3765. Said transportation was carried out without obtaining the requisite permits or licenses from the competent authority and without payment of the applicable statutory taxes, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and amounting to an act of cheating and evasion. It is further alleged that the complainant, N.Obula Reddy, Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole, upon intercepting the vehicles and verifying the absence of legal documentation, seized the granite blocks along with the lorries involved. Subsequently, on 17.02.2022 at 18:00 3 hours, he lodged a formal complaint at the jurisdictional police station, seeking initiation of legal proceedings against the accused. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Karthik Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.18 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 4 6. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. Upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, it is found that Accused No.18 was neither named in the FIR nor identified as an organizer, seller, or purchaser in the alleged illegal transportation of granite blocks. His implication in the case was solely based on the confessional statements of the lorry drivers, which, at this stage, lacked corroborative evidence and did not establish any direct nexus between Accused No.18 and the commission of the alleged offence. This Court observed that mere reference in a co-accused’s confession, without independent verification or recovery, cannot form the sole basis for custodial detention and interrogation. Furthermore, similarly placed co-accused Accused Nos.5, 7, 11, and 13 had already been granted anticipatory bail. In light of the principle of parity and the 5 absence of any overt act attributed to Accused No.18, the Court was of the view that custodial detention was unwarranted. It was also observed that the investigation had substantially progressed and the seizure of material evidence had already been effected, thereby reducing the risk of tampering or obstruction. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.18. CONCLUSION: 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.18 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 sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.18 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.18 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.18 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. 6 v. The Petitioner/Accused No.18 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.18 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.09.2025 VTS