APHC010503532025 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: 9900/2025 Between: 1. K VEMA REDDY, OCC AGRICULTURE,RO. 15145, TARAKARAMA COLONY,KUTTAGALLA VILLAGE, KADIRI MANDAL,SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by the Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed, under Sections 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner-accused No. 6seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to him in crime No. 326 of 2025ofKadiri Town Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7 (a) read with Sections 8 (e) and 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act and Section 4 (c) of A.P. Lotteries Act, 1998. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On13-09-2025 at about 11 a.m. at open place, near Kutagulla Railway Gate, KandikuntaNarayanamma Colony, Kadiri Town, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were found and arrested while they were in possession of 16 litres of I.D. arrack and 47 lottery tickets. It is the further case of prosecution that accused Nos. 6 to 11 were also involved in the commission of offences. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri B.Abhay Siddhanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocentand has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime.It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinnerofhis family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakesto abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 3 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law.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 pre- arrest bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined.It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on pre-arrest 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 of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner doesnot deserve the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. 4 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The role of the present petitioner has come into light based on the confession of accused Nos. 1 to 5. The petitioner is permanent resident of KuttagallaVilalge, Kadiri Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. He has got fixed abode. All the witnesses are official witnesses. Hence, chances of the petitioner either threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation may not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No. 6, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to him with the following stringent conditions: (i) In the event of arrest, the petitioner-accused No. 6 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 arresting officials; (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 6shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till filing of charge sheet; 5 (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 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. 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; and (vi) 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. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:26-09-2025, JSK 6 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9900 OF 2025 DATE: 26-09-2025 JSK