APHC010463692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9195/2025 Between: Kancherla Raju Babu Alias Raju ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9199/2025 Between: Kancherla Raju Babu Alias Raju ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Babuji Tenneti Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Both these two Criminal Petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order inasmuch as the Petitioner in the two cases is one and the same but the crimes are different. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.9195 and 9199 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 2. Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused for grant pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime Nos.8/(2025)-Tuni-311 and 8/(2025)-Tuni-312 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Tuni, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 2020 (for brevity ‘the Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IN CRIMINAL PETITON NO.9195 OF 2025: 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.08.2025 at about 4:00 P.M., following instructions from the Kakinada DPEO, the Prohibition & Excise Inspector (ESTF) and staff conducted raids at Talluru Village, Tuni Mandal. At D.No.3-52, the house of Bokem Nageswara Rao, a man dropped a mica bag and attempted to flee on seeing the officers. He was stopped and admitted the bag contained ID liquor. As no mediators were available, the officers opened the bag in the presence of staff, finding 50 packets (200 ml each) totaling 10 liters of ID liquor. The accused revealed he had purchased the liquor cheaply from Kacherla Raju Babu @ Raju to sell for profit. He was arrested under the A.P. Prohibition Act, informed of the charges, and the liquor was seized. A 300 ml sample was taken, sealed, and sent for chemical analysis. A case was registered as Crime No.08/(2025)-Tuni-311 under Sections 7(B) r/w 8(B) of ‘the Act’. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IN CRIMINAL PETITON NO.9199 OF 2025: 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.9195 and 9199 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.08.2025 at about 5:30 P.M., acting on DPEO Kakinada’s instructions, the Prohibition & Excise Inspector (ESTF) and staff conducted raids at the specified location. A man carrying a mica bag dropped it and fled upon seeing the officers, evading capture. As no mediators were available, the bag was opened in the presence of staff, revealing a polythene cover containing 10 liters of ID liquor. A 300 ml sample was taken, sealed, and sent for chemical analysis. The remaining liquor was seized, and Crime No.08/(2025)-Tuni-312 was registered under Sections 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The petitioner/accused asserts innocence, claiming false implication and registration of a fabricated case by police. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 5. Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 6. 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 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.9195 and 9199 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 7. 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 Petitions directly before this Court, such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C and Another v. State of Kerala and Another1. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. 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 pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are two similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. They are Crime Nos.6 and 231 of 2025 of Tuni Prohibition and Excise Station. 11. 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 1Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 6588 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.9195 and 9199 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C supra wherein at para Nos.7 to 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 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.” 12. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioners establishes a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.9195 and 9199 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 the averments, the Petitioners neither established a special circumstances nor extra-ordinary circumstance. CONCLUSION: 13. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, there are two adverse antecedents of similar in nature are reported against the petitioner in this year itself and the petitioner has not approached the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance, this Court is not inclined to grant to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the Criminal Petitions are 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 within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of this order. Until such time, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge is required to dispose of such pre-arrest bail application on its own merits and in accordance with law. _______________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.09.2025 KMS 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.9195 and 9199 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 9195 and 9199 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 KMS