APHC010447422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9349/2025 Between: ORSU VISWANATH, S/O. ORSU CHANDRA SEKHAR, YEARS, KRISHNA NAGAR, SUDDALOLLA ROAD, NEAR RAJU SCHOOL, RAJACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL, REVIOUSLY SN COLONY, BALAJI NAGAR, NEAR SAI PRASANTH HOSPITAL, RAYACHOTY TOWN MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, NATIVE OF D. NO. 68/79 ALANKHAN ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati through Station House Officer, RSASTF Police station, Tirupati, Chittoor District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: SRINIVASU L Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9349 of 2025 Dated 18.09.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.5 on bail in Cr.No.108 of 2025 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.5 herein for the offences punishable under Section 303 (2), read with 3 (5)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), 20(1)(d)(i)(a) read with 20 (I)(c) ii, iii, iv, x, 36 (a) read with 32-A of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Amendment Act, 2016. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 10.07.2025, at about 2.45 a.m., on receipt of reliable information, the Reserve Sub-Inspector, RSASTF Sub-Control, Kadapa, along with his staff, proceeded to Nayanuripalli village fields near Veeraballi Reserve Forest, Annamayya District. While checking the area with dragon light illumination, they noticed motorcycles and some persons standing suspiciously. On seeing the police party, the persons attempted to flee, but four of them were apprehended, while others escaped. On enquiry, the four apprehended persons confessed their involvement in red sander smuggling 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9349 of 2025 Dated 18.09.2025 activities, organized in conspiracy with Orusu Viswanath, Reddy Sekhar, and Ojivedu Babu, who, along with hired coolies, procured red sander logs from the reserve forest, transported, and concealed them for sale to big smugglers.At the scene, the police seized (i) 22 red sander logs, (ii) Yamaha FZ motorcycle No. AP03CD2449, (iii) Yamaha FZ motorcycle No. AP03BC7896, and (iv) TVS XL100 motorcycle No. AP39QF9476. The seizure was photographed and documented, and the logs were later identified by the Forest Beat Officer as red sanders. The complainant then produced the four apprehended accused, along with the seized 22 logs and three motorcycles. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri L.Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocentand he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9349 of 2025 Dated 18.09.2025 process of law. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed to grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined.It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non- cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner doesnot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9349 of 2025 Dated 18.09.2025 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by 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 learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner/Accused No.5 is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.5 is that he indulged in dealing with 22 red sander logs weighing about 430 kgs. The role of the petitioner came to light based on the confession given by Accused No.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is a main smuggler and a conspirator in the red sander smuggling activity. The petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 57 days. So far, seven witnesses have been examined. Further investigation is required, and the case is still at a primitive stage. Hence, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9349 of 2025 Dated 18.09.2025 CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.5 on bail. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:18-09-2025, RSI 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9349 of 2025 Dated 18.09.2025 THEHONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9349 OF 2025 DATE: 18-09-2025 RSI