APHC010444612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8875/2025 Between: NARGANI SRINU @ BANGARU SRINU, S/O BANGARAIAH, D.NO.7- 55/1, VINAYAKA TEMPLE, RAGHUNADHAPURAM VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: TATA SINGAIAH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8875 of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 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 Petitioner/Accused No.2, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.187 of 2025 of Bommuru Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7-B read with 8 (B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.06.2025 at about 08:30 P.M., near Kavalagoyya Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural, and reported on the same day at 10:00 P.M., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station, on receipt of credible information regarding illegal transportation of illicit arrack, conducted a raid along with his staff at the said place. During the raid, they apprehended Komati Govind, S/o Buliyya, aged 39 years, by caste Gowda, resident of Pidimgoyya Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural, while he was transporting 100 litres of illicit arrack packed in five plastic bags concealed in a white rice bag on a numberless Hero Xtreme motorcycle, as per the instructions of Nargani 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8875 of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 Srinu @ Bangar Srinu. The police seized 100 litres of illicit arrack, valued at Rs.30,000/-, together with the numberless Hero Xtreme motorcycle, under the cover of the occurrence report. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship to dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 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 his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the role of the petitioner has come to light based on the confession of Accused No.1. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in the interest of justice. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8875 of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that without approaching the learned Sessions Judge of first instance, the Petitioner filed this Petition directly before this Court, such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that she has no instructions regarding any previous adverse similar antecedents of the petitioner, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. 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/Accused No.2 is entitled for grant of pre- arrest bail?” 1Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8875 of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 ANALYSIS: 8. An application has been filed under Section 482 of „the BNSS‟, seeking for granting pre-arrest bail without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C supra wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows:- “7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case. 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre- arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8875 of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/ extra- ordinary circumstances.” 9. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of „the BNSS‟, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner establishes a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioner neither established a special circumstances nor extra-ordinary circumstance. CONCLUSION: 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned and move an appropriate application for grant of pre-arrest bail. Any observations made in this order would not hinder the learned Sessions Judge concerned from applying its mind independently and passing appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law. The Investigating Officer is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner/Accused No.2 for a period of two (02) weeks from today, enabling the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge. In the 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8875 of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 event of the petitioner/Accused No.2 does not choose to move an application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge concerned within the said period, the Investigating Officer may proceed in accordance with law. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.09.2025 RSI 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8875 of 2025 Dated 16.09.2025 81 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8875 of 2025 Date:16.09.2025 RSI