APHC010475862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9395/2025 Between: Hemanth Singh Solanki ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SHREYAS REDDY 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.6 on bail in Crime No.117 of 2025 of Chapadu Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the 2 offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 109, 132, 49 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS), Section 20(1)(c) ii, iii, iv, vi, x, 20(1)(d)(i)(a)(b)(ii)(a)(b) of AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016, Rule 3 of A.P.Snadal Wood & Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969, Section 3 of 1 the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short ‘the PDPP Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that this is a case of attempt to murder, criminal force to deter public servant from discharging his duty, criminal conspiracy, abetment to commit the offence, trespass into reserve forest without permission, cut the live red sander trees and committed theft and trying to shift by loading for the purpose of smuggling red sander logs that occurred on 24.07.2025 at 2.00 p.m., at Nagulapalli Cross, on Proddatur-Mydukur NH Road, Chapadu Mandal, in which accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and 14 red sander logs, weighing 281 kgs, Volkswagen Cross Polo Car bearing No.AP-07-CA-9939, 2 sickels and 2 stones were seized from their possession. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed about the involvement of accused No.6 and others in this case. 3 CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr.P.Shreyas Reddy, 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. 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 4 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 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: 6. 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: 7. The allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.6, as seen from the record, are that he was in charge of the godown at Hyderabad, wherein 14 red sander logs weighing 281 kg were allegedly intended to be stored. The petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 44 days. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Abids, Hyderabad. He has got fixed abode. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has one prior antecedent of a similar nature. The learned counsel 5 for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering from cancer of the buccal mucosa, due to which he is unable to speak. The learned counsel further states that the petitioner’s confessional statement was recorded by the investigating officer despite his severe health condition. The learned counsel also relies on certain medical documents, including a case summary dated 06.08.2025 issued by Bhagwan Mahaveer Cancer Hospital & Research Centre. As per the summary, the petitioner, aged about 40 years, has been diagnosed with cancer of the right buccal mucosa and has undergone surgery for it. 8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has one prior antecedent of a similar nature. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 at para No.7 observed that criminal similar adverse antecedents cannot be basis for refusal of bail. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and health condition of the petitioner and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each 1 (2020) 11 SCC 648 6 to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases relating to Red Sanders Smuggling, Tirupati. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for investigation by the investigating officer as and when required. iii. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not, directly or 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. v) The petitioner/accused No.6 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.09.2025 S D P 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9395 of 2025 Date:18.09.2025 S D P