lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl'j ?!'-.,I:_ THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, f3,7 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIIVIINAL PETITION NO: 9781 OF 2025 /,-. i ~i+_i±\..<= . Between : Nargani Srinu @ Bangam Srinu, S/0. Bangarayya, Age 38 Years, R/0. Raghunadhapuram Village, Rajanagaram Mandalam. Present Address Pidimgoyyi Village, Rajamahendravara,m Rural MandaI I.[Petitioner/Accused A-2 .a,JI AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant .,/ Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing the arresting officer to release them on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR NO. 335 of 2025 of Proh. & Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram- South limits in VII AddI. J.F.C.Magistra'te, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, ~, Counsel forthe petitioner : sri Tata Singaiah Goud 7 Counsel for the Respondemt : Ms.P.Akhila Naidu Assistant Public Prosecutor. ; 7 The Court made the following ORDER: / .. f7` .- APHCO10497622025 E=IT!LE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (special orjg[-na[ Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9781 OF 2025 [3521] Between|| 1.NARGANI SRINU ALIAS BANGAM SRINU, S/0. BANGARAYYA, AGE 38 YEARS, R/0. RAGHUNADHAPURAM VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM. PRESENT ADDRESS PIDIMGOYYI VILLAGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by its public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. TATA SINGAIAH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the followI-llg: ORDER: The Criminal petitI-On has been ,filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSSJ) by the petitI-Oner/ Accused No.2 for grantl-ng of pre-arrest bail in connectI'On With Crime No.335 i.'> '.| a+ of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South Police Station, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that o'n 23.07.2025-at about 6.00 a.m the P&ESl, Rajamahendravaram South along,with staff conducted raids at near Vinayaka Temple in Raghunadhapuram Village, Rajanagaram Mandal and found one person coming towards the raid party with a mica hand bag in his right hand. On seeing the raid party, the person perturbed and tried to escape from the place, but the Police stopped him and questioned and in their presence verified the mica hand bag and found 5 liters of lD liquor packed in Polythene cover with strong ID Liqor smell. The Police arrested the Accused and seized the contraband. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, 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. lt is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and any coercI'Ve action, including arrest, WOuld result in grave and irreparable hardship to hI'S dependent family members. lt 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 cleem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the coirrf of hI'S continued presence as and when required. 4. Learned Counsel forthe petitI-Oner also Submits that there is no recovery attributable to the petitioner and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary norjustifI'ed 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, in the interest of justice and equI.ty. ARGUME NTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 5. Per contra, p. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipa{ory baI-I, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensI'tiVe Stage, and that custodial interrogatl'on of the petitioner is indI'SPenSable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the petI'tiOner On Pre-arrest bail at this juncture would seriously I'mPede 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 reII-ef sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evl'dence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investI'gatI'On and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impart:al inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and {o 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. ln 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: ltWhether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pro-arrest bail?" ANALYSIS: 9. Without going into the merits of the matter, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that these four applications have been filed under Section 482 of [the BNSSJ, seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. The Hon]ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasa/.C st,pro wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 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. F±fff€f- \t 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 requirecl to approach the Sessions Court concern?cl 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. lt 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." 10. Albeit this Court has got concurrentjurisdic{ion under section 482 of fthe BNSSJ, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the petitioner establish a special case or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioner neI'ther established ta special Case nor extra-Ordinary circumstance. CONCLUSION: ll. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/ Accused. 12. In the result, the Criminal PetI'tI-On I-S allowed with the foIIowI-ng conditions: ¢ i i. ln the event of arrest of the petitioner/Accused No.2, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a Personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 srlall appear before the Station Hou'se Officer concerned once in a Week i.e., On every Saturday V. VI. To, between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge Sheet. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the State of Andhra pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Off'lcer. SD/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASS!STA`N //TRUE COPY// I S ISTRAR TION OFFICEP` 1. The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station] Rajamahendravaram South Police 'Station, East Godavari D'lstrict. I.. 2. 6-hJ;--6,6`t-6--S;i i;ia singaiah Goud, Aclvocate [OPUC] ,'~7 3. Twc; CCs to Public Prosecuto.r, High. Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Onespare copy >U) t^ u J /,,I HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED..25/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9781 of 2025 ALLOWED -'+pr uc 'F £ri; I B SEP 2ffi .-u£