APHC010485942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9565/2025 Between: 1. C. BHARATH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAN, R/O. DOOR NO. 15, THIRUNEERMALAI ROAD, KAMARAJAPURAM VILLAGE, PAMMAL POST, CHENGALPATTU DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE - 600 070 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the S.H.O. Nagari Urban Police station Chittor District, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner-accused No. 1 seeking to enlarge him on bail in crime No. 143 of 2025 of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303 (2), 317(4), 318 (4), 316 (2) and 61 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Sections 4 and 21 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.07.2025 at 06:00 hours, near the Tirupati-Tiruttani Highway Road, in the vicinity of the Andhra-Tamil Nadu border, within the jurisdiction of Thadukupeta Panchayat, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, a coordinated operation was conducted by the Revenue and Police authorities based on credible information, pursuant to which a detailed panchanama was prepared by K.Meghavarnam, Deputy Tahsildar, Nagari Mandal, wherein it is alleged that the accused persons, namely Bharath (A1), Devarajulu (A2), V.Jayakrishna (A3), S.Pandiyan (A4), A.Ajith Kumar (A5), M.Praveen Kumar (A6), A.S.Sreejith (A7), N.Anthony Ashok (A8), Senthil (A9), Bilal (A10), Amrutharaj Nadar @ TRS (A11), Proprietor of Vel & Co Stone Crushers (A12), and others, formed into an unlawful assembly and entered into a criminal conspiracy with the intent to commit theft of government property and to derive unlawful gain through illegal transportation of sand. 3 3. The said accused persons had procured sand from the government authorised sand reach located at Besthapalli in Annamaiah District, Andhra Pradesh, and, in violation of the prescribed norms, misused the transportation permits issued for intra-state movement. With premeditated intent and full knowledge that cross-border transportation of sand constitutes theft and is prohibited under law, the accused concealed the sand beneath layers of stone crusher powder in tippers and attempted to transport the same to the State of Tamil Nadu. During the said illegal operation, accused Nos. 2 to 8 were apprehended at the scene by the joint team of Revenue and Police officials. A total of seven sand-laden tippers were seized, containing approximately 70 units of sand, with an estimated value of Rs.1,05,000/-. The remaining accused, including the proprietor of Vel & Co Stone Crushers, are alleged to have directly facilitated and abetted the commission of the offence. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 4. SRI G.Naga Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false, fabricated, and politically motivated. It is contended that his implication is solely due to political rivalry. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the offences alleged under Sections 303 (2) and 316 (2) of ‘the BNS’ are punishable with imprisonment up to five years and do not attract the rigours of custodial interrogation pursuant to arrest. The addition of Sections 111 (2) (b) and 317 (4) of ‘the BNS’ is alleged to be a deliberate act by the respondent/police to circumvent the statutory 4 requirement of issuing notice under Section 35 (b) of ‘the BNSS’, and to ensure the petitioner's incarceration. 5. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family. He has never been involved in any criminal activity, and no cases are pending against him. His continued detention based on unsubstantiated allegations has caused irreparable harm to his reputation and standing in the community. It is submitted that the material part of the investigation has been completed. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Pammal Post, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu State, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and he will not abscond or tamper with evidence and is willing to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court for his release on bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed Criminal M.P. No.189 of 2025 before learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, seeking bail. However, the said petition was dismissed on 26.08.2025 without due consideration of the above facts. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 14.07.2025 and is presently lodged in judicial custody at Sub-Jail, Satyaveedu, Chittoor District. He undertakes to furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction of this Court and assures full cooperation with the investigation and trial proceedings. The present petition is filed bona fide and in the interest of justice and it is urged to grant bail to the petitioner-accused No. 1. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 7. On the other hand, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail to petitioner stating that investigation is 5 not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation, and he will repeat the same offence. It is further argued that the investigation is still at nascent stage. Some more witnesses are to be examined and some more documents are yet to be collected. It is urged to dismiss the petition. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. Now, the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is entitled for grant of bail? ANALYSIS: 10. The offences alleged under Sections 303 (2) and 316 (2) of 'the BNS’, though non-bailable, are punishable with imprisonment up to five years and do not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, warrant continued custodial detention. The petitioner was arrested on 14-07-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 72 days. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Kamarajapuram Village, Pammal Post, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu State, and has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and trial proceedings. There is no material to suggest any likelihood of absconding or tampering with the evidence. 6 CONCLUSION: 11. Considering the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No. 1 and the period of detention undergone by him, this Court is inclined to enlarge him on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) 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 of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari; (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till cognizance is taken by learned the Trial Court; (iii) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (iv) 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) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and 7 (vi) The petitioner-accused No. 1 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. 12. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 23.09.2025. JSK 8 HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9565 OF 2025 DATE: 23-09-2025 JSK