APHC010495682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9778 OF 2025 Between: 1. DAYAL ALIAS DAYA ALIAS DEVA, S/O CHENGALRAYULU, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC PVT. SERVICE, R/O. 5-36, GUNTIPALLI VILLAGE, RAMANANDA PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with O.R.No. 16/2025-26 of Bhakarapeta Range, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(x), 29(2)(b), 29(4)(a)(i), 29(4)(b)m 32-A, 32-B, 32-C of A.P.Forest Amendment Act, 2016, Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969, Section 27 and 29 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Sections 303, 331 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.07.2025, on receipt of credible information the Forest Range Officer, Bhakarapet and his staff proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Siddhalagandi Cheruvu, Compartment No.28 in Talakona North Beat, Yallamanda Section, Bhakarapet Range, Yarravaripalem Mandal, Tiruapti District. It is alleged that while checking the surroundings in the said place, the Police found a car and some persns are loading logs in that vehicle and caught 3 persons along with car, on checking the said car, they found 8 red sander logs inside, weighing 156 Kgs and same was seized and case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by him. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to his dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of his continued presence as and when required. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner has already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2, in the interest of justice and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioner may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 6. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioner, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 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 pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2, on careful perusal of the record, is that he along with other Accused had allegedly indulged in dealing with three logs of red sandalwood, weighing about 156 Kgs. Based on the confession of Accused No.3 to 5, the alleged role of the Accused No.2 came out. It is the contention of the prosecution is that the Petitioner is the main organizer of cutting red sandalwood and supplying to the Accused No.1, who is main smuggler. Investigation is still at nascent stage. Several witnesses are to be examined. There was a case registered in the 2019 for the similar offence against the Petitioner. There are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2. 10. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of „the BNSS‟ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts. CONCLUSION: 11. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioner, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of „the BNSS‟. The allegations prima facie discloses a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected. 12. Hence, this criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025. KK 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9778 OF 2025 25.09.2025 KK