r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI / - r- S \ i"- TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINALPETITIONNO: 8997 OF 2025 Between: Pagala Ramesh Babu, S/o. late. P.Veeramallu, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.4-51, Sunkaravari Palle, Thummanamgutta Village and Post, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Amaravathi. ...Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C & Section 482 of BNSS, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pursuant to registration of Crime (FIR) No. 66 of 2023 of B.Kothakota Police Station, Annamayya District pending enquiry and trial. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaik Meeravali, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner-accused No. 1 in crime No. 66 of 2023 of B.Kothakota Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34 (1) read with Sections 34 (a), 11 (2) and 42 of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: On 05-05-2023 at about 5.45 p.m. in Cheekuchettupalli, H/o Gollapalli Village, B.Kothakota Mandal, Annamayya District, the Sub Inspector of Police, B.Kothakota Police Station, along with his staff found and arrested accused No. 2 while he was in possession of 48 Tetra Packets of non-duty paid liquor, each packet containing 180 ml. 2. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Ms. D.Madhavi, learned counsel, representing Mr. Shaik Meeravali learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocentand 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 breadwinnerof his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitionerundertakesto abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 3 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated by accused No. 2 because of earlier animosity. It is urged that the allegations of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting pre-arrest bail, petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. are ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined.lt is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if granted pre-arrest bail, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.lt 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. However, it is represented that there are no adverse similar antecedents against the petitioner. in 4 Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by 6. 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 the sides, now the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail? ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 1 is that he along with other accused indulged in dealing with purchase, possession and transportation of 48 Tetra Packets of non-duty paid liquor, each packet containing 180 ml., from Karnataka State to Andhra Pradesh State. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. The petitioner is permanent resident of Sunkaravaripalle, Thummanamgutta Village and Post Chittoor District. He has got fixed abode. Accused No. 2 was spot arrested along with 48 Tetra Packets of non-duty paid liquor. Accused No. 2 gave confession against accused No. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that accused No. 2 got inimical terms with accused No. 1. it was due to political influence, the petitioner was roped into the present case. Except the alleged confession, there was nothing on the record about culpability of the petitioner. The petitioner got imminent threat from the police for his arrest. 5 CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner- accused No. 1 with the following stringent conditions: (i) In the event of his arrest, the petitioner-accused No. 1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction ofthe Station House Officer, B.Kothakota Police Station: (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall appear before the Station House Officer, B.Kothakota Police Station, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till cognizance is taken by learned trial Court; (iii) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned; (iv) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall not commit orindulge in commission of any offence in future; The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required; (V) 6 (vi) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall not, directly indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (vii) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer.If he claims thathe does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. or 10. / SDI- K.SR1NIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Station House Officer, B.Kothakota Prohibition & Excise Police Station, Annamayya District. 2. One CC to Sri Shaik Meeravali, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.[OUT] 4. One spare copy. PSD HIGH COURT DR.YLR.J DATE:09/09/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8997 of 2025 ALLOWED