APHC010464792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9214/2025 Between: P Lakshmana Achari ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 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.2 on bail in Crime No.31 of 2025 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the offences 2 punishable under Sections 303(2) r/w 3(5), 49 and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS), Section 20(1)(d)(i)(a) r/w 20(1)(c) ii, iii, iv, x, 36(a) r/w 32A of AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that the offence of criminal trespass into reserve forest was committed without permission, the accused cut the live red sander trees and committed theft of them and trying to shift by loading for the purpose of smuggling red sander logs that occurred on 18.07.2025 at 5.00 a.m., on Madhireddigaripalli-Veeraballi Main Road, Ayyalavaripalli Cross, Veeraballi Forest Beat, SanipayaForesh Section and Range, in which accused No.1 was arrested and 3 red sander logs, weighing 40 kgs and Honda Unicorn Motor cycle bearing No.AP-04-BE-1447 were seized from his possession. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr.Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 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. 3 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 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 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, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. 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 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 4 of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. 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: 8. The petitioner/Accused No.2 is alleged to have indulged in dealing with transportation of three (3) red sander logs, weighing 40 kgs. The role of the petitioner emerges based on the confession of Accused No.1. The petitioner was arrested on 05.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 40 days. The petitioner has got fixed abode. The petitioner is permanent resident of Kuraparthy Village, Voyalpadu Mandal, Annamayya District. So far, six witnesses have been examined. They are all material witnesses. Major portion of investigation is completed. If the petitioner is enlarge on bail he may not cause impediment to the progress of the investigation. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention 5 undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate for Special Court of Trial Cases of Red Sanders Offences, Tirupati. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer, RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the learned First Class Magistrate for Special Court of Trial Cases of Red Sanders Offences, Tirupati. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person 6 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. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.09.2025 S D P 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9214 of 2025 Date:16.09.2025 S D P