/, lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10118 OF 2025 Betwee n : Anu Priya, W/o. Charanjith Singh, aged about 46 years, Occ: Advocate at High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh R/o. Lakshmi Arcade Plot No, 301 & 401, UppaI, Medchal-malkajgiri District-500 039, Telangana State. ...Petitioner/Proposed Accused No.5 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 BNSS, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant ANTICIPATORY BAIL to the petitioner / proposed Accused No. 5 in connection with Crime No. 41 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Kandukur, Nellore District., in the event of arrest on such condition or conditions. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Naga Raju Kollati, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the fdllowing APHCO10517672025 EELE lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original JurI-SdiCtiOn) WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO £BLMINAL, PETITION NO: 10118±2g2§i Between : Anu Priya AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the petitioner/accused: 1. NAGA RAJU KOLLATl [3521] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The CrI-minaI Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2-023 (for brevity 'the BNSS') by the petitI'Oner/Accused No.5, for granting of pre-arrest baI'l in connection with crime No.41 of 2025 of Excise Station, Kandukur, spsR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences puni.shable under sections 34(A) RAN 34 I-? '`- : (1)(ii), 34(e) RAV34(2) 13(1)(f) 42(c) 34(f)I/w 34(2)13(E) 34(h)RAN 34(2)&42, 50B(a) of A.P.Excise Act,1968. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averm6nts stemming from the prosecution are that on o6.07.2025 the S.H.O Prohibition of Excise, Kandukuru, on credible information, the Inspector along. with staff reached D.No.D-6, Mittapalem of Gudlur Village & Mandal and found one person. The person admitted that he along with others had counterfeit (adulterated) liquor inside the house. On search, they produced the adulterated liquor, which they used {o transport and sold. The Inspector of Prohibition and Excise in the presenc'e of witnesses examined the house and found the liquor and seized the liquor. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. Naga Raju Kollati, learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of her family, and her arrest would cause irreparable hardship {o her dependents. The Petitioner is w'llling to ab'lde by any condition that th-lS Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. lt is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the petitioner and custodial I'nterrOgatjon period was over and such custody is not warranted I'n the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there js no likell'hood of absconding or tamperjng with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitl'oner/Accused No.9 I-n the interest of justice. ARC UMENTS OF THE 5. Per confra, NeelotpaI Ganji, learned Assistant public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investI-gation' is at a nascent stage and the custodial l'nterrogation of the petitioner is imperative for elicI'{ing material facts. lt is submitted that if the petitioner js granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that she may not cooperate wl'th the investigatI-On and may evade the process of law. 6. lt is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the petitl-oner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial l|nvestigation. In view of the seriousness of the a''egations and the potential risk to the integrity of the I-nvestigation, it is Prayed that the I-nstant bail application be djsml'ssed. 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 po'lnt for consideration is: LLWhether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?l' ANALYSIS: 9. As seen from the record, it is the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner/accused No.9 along with her husband held 34.50 shares in Navya lnfra Company which prepares ethanol hand sanitizers. The petitioner's company had allegedly supplied ethanol which was used for preparation of spurious liquor. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are similar adverse antecedents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate in the Telangana High Court. She is shown as one of the partners 'ln Navya lnfra Company and Energy Solutions only for namesake. She is only a sleeping partner, the real partner is her husband. There are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and her husband and she lodged a complaint aga'lnst her husband in Crime No.891 of 2022 of Uppal Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and also women burning, as her husband not only harassed her but also caused injuries. The police filed a charge sheet agains.i her husband. Later, because of the compulsion of the family members, the matter was compromised. The petitioner filed medico-legal case irecords wherein it was mentioned that she suffered some injuries. The petI'tiOner iS having a boy aged about 16 years. She was divorced by her first husband due to some problems. 10. As seen from the record produced by the petitioner, there are matrl'monial disputes between the petitioner and accused No.8. The petitioner tried to commit suicide by pourI-ng SanjtiZer and setting herself ablaze with a lighter due to the unbearable torture meted out by her husband. The petitioner is a permanent resident of uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State. she is a practicing Advocate in High Court of Telangana. The petitioner is only a sleeping partner in Navya lnfra company and Energy Solutions. ll. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this court I'S inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. 12. In the result, the crimI-nal petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. ln the event other arrest, the petitI'Oner Shall be enlarged on bail subject {o her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousandl only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arrestI'ng POliCe officials; The Petitioner shall make herself available for investigation as and when required; fZ-497P - iii. The Petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; lV. V. VI. The Petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a month i.e., on any Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. The Petitioner shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The Petitioner shall surrender her passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf he claims that she does not have passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. SD/-M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICEP` To] 1. The Stall-on House offl'cer, prohibl-tl-on and Excise poll-Ce Station, Kandukur, Nellore District, 2. One CC to Sri Naga Raju Kollati, Advocate [opucJ 3. Two CCs topuBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court of A.P.I Amaravatj.[ouT] 4. One spare copy. PSD I- i- HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATE.. 08/10/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10118 of2025 ALLOWED i t`-i 'lO i . .(:I::,31: •'prl-