APHC010447502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9160/2025 Between: 1.R SENTHIL, S/O AJITHA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.N0.5-35A, UNNAVILAI, KARIYALLOOR, VALAVAEHGOCHTAN, KATTATHURANI, KALKULAM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT TAMILNADU 2.SURESH KUMAR PERUMALKUTTI, S/O PERUMAL KUTTI, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.6/16/1, ELANCHIKOTTUVILLAI, VEEYANOOR POST, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, represented by its Publie Proseeutor, High Court at Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.V VENKATA MAYUR 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.9 & 12 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with in Crime No.143 of 2025 of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.9 & 12 for the offences punishable under Sections 111 (2) (b), 303 (2), 317 (4), 318 (4), 316 (2), 61 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘the PDPP Act’) and Section 4 and 21(4) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 (for brevity, ‘the MMDR Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.07.2025 at 6:00 AM, near the Tirupati-Tiruttani Highway close to the Andhra Pradesh–Tamil Nadu border (Thadukupeta Panchayat, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District), the petitioners/Accused Nos.9 & 12 along with others conspired to illegally transport sand purchased from Annamayya District. They misused government-issued transportation bills to carry sand across state borders for illegal profit, violating Andhra Pradesh regulations. The sand was hidden under stone loads in tippers associated with Vel & Co Stone Crusher. During the transport to Tamil Nadu, the police intercepted A2 to A8 and seized 7 sand-loaded tippers carrying approximately 70 tons of sand worth Rs.1,05,000/- and registered an FIR. 3. Mr. V.Venkata Mayur, the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.9 & 12 contends that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police due to political vendetta. It is further submitted that petitioners/Accused Nos.9 & 12 are permanent 3 residents of Kanyakumari District, Tamilnadu and undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Further, basing on the alleged confession of Accused Nos.1 to 8, Section 111(2)(b) of BNS is added against the petitioners/Accused Nos.9 & 12 as if they also participated in the aforementioned crime and it is urged to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.9 & 12 on bail 4. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the material portion of investigation is completed and urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.9 & 12 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. In view of the serious allegations and the material placed on record, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to Accused Nos.9 and 12 at this stage. The prosecution has made out a prima facie case indicating a criminal conspiracy involving illegal transportation of sand across state borders, in contravention of the regulatory framework. The statement of L.W.7 recorded under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ specifically implicates the Petitioners. Accused No.9 is stated to be the owner of the tipper lorries used in the offence, while Accused No.12 is the proprietor of the stone crusher under which the sand was concealed. Considering the organized nature of the offence, its environmental and economic impact, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, this Court finds no merit in this case. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 7. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners requests this Court to grant liberty to the Petitioners to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned and move an appropriate application for their release before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners/Accused Nos.9 and 12 to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned for enlarging them on bail. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall consider such application on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the learned Public Prosecutor. The said application shall be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of two (02) days from the date of its filing. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 11.09.2025 VTS