APHC010460902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9143/2025 Between: MalikireddyBramha Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. Uday Bhaskar Koritipati Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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.9 on bail in Crime No.32 of 2025 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati, Chittoor District, registered for the 2 offences punishable under Sections 303(2) r/w 3(5), 49, 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS’) and Sections 20(1)(d)(i)(a) r/w 20(1)(c) ii, iii, iv, x, 36(a) r/w 32A, 29(4)(i)(a) of AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016. 2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 21.07.2025 at 5:00 a.m., police officials received credible information about the illegal smuggling of red sandalwood logs. They proceeded to the Reserve Forest near Thunukonda, Desettypalli Forest Beat and Section, Balapalli Range, Railway Kodur Mandal, Annamayya District, where they found accused Nos. 1 to 9 in possession of 16 red sandalwood logs weighing 410 kgs. The police officials then arrested accused Nos. 1 to 9 and seized the 16 red sandalwood logs along with other materials. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. Sri Uday Bhaskar Koritipati, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.9 submits thatthe Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him 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 his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 3 5. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so 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, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 6. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are 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. 7. 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 4 submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 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 bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. The allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.9, as seen from the record, are that he arranged a Mahindra TUV300 vehicle bearing No. AP-26- BL-1799 for the transportation of 410 kgs of red sander wood. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. He not only arranged the vehicle for transporting the red sander wood but also acted as a pilot in another car, leading the other accused who were transporting the red sander wood. Even though Accused No.2 is said to be the main smuggler in this case, it is alleged that, at his instance, the present petitioner arranged the transportation. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was unaware of the transportation of red sander wood in his vehicle cannot be accepted. Being the owner of the vehicle, the petitioner is expected to know where the vehicle is being sent, for what purpose it is hired, and what 5 goods are being transported. The petitioner’s claimed ignorance is unbelievable, particularly since he was also previously involved in a similar forest offence in Crime No.55 of 2021.The petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 50 days only. The investigation is at a nascent stage, and some more witnesses remain to be examined. Therefore, the petitioner’s request for release at this juncture is neither convincing nor reasonable. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed for the present. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.09.2025 S D P 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9143 of 2025 Date:12.09.2025 S D P