APHC010495592025 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: 9767/2025 Between: Kalleti Sairam ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Bodapati Vamsi Krishna Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.7 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.68 of 2025 of Varadaiahpalem Police Station, Tirupathi, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), Sections 20(1)(d)(i) read with 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x) and 36 read with 32A of the Andhra Pradesh 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9767 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 Forest Act, 1967 (for brevity ‘the Act’), Sections 55(2) read with 3,4 and 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and Rule 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules 1969 (for brevity ‘the Rules’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is on 23.07.2025 at about 5:30 a.m., near the RTC Bus Stand on Srikalahasti–Tada main road, police intercepted a Mahindra Scorpio and an Ashok Leyland Dost carrying 11 red sander logs (211 kgs) worth Rs.31.83 lakhs and seized four mobile phones. Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.8 to 10 were apprehended. During investigation, Accused No.8 implicated the Petitioner/Accused No.7 (Kalleti Sairam @ Sai) as involved in transporting logs towards Tamil Nadu and in maintaining gangs. The prosecution alleges A-1 to A-3 felled and stored the logs, while Accused Nos.4 to 6 arranged buyers, and the seized consignment was meant for Accused No.5 Lokesh, to be received by Accused No.6 Dharani and Accused No.7 Sai. Based on this, the petitioner was booked under Sections 329(3) and 303(2) BNS, provisions of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and the A.P. Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Bodapati Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9767 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 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.7 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 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9767 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 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. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.7 is that he was involved in the possession and transportation of 11 red sanders logs weighing about 211 kgs. It is also noted that there is one similar 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9767 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 adverse antecedent against him. The prosecution case is that Accused Nos.1 to 3 cut the red sanders logs from the trees, and Accused No.5 arranged for their sale. Accused Nos.6 and 7 allegedly went to receive the said logs on the instructions of Accused No.5. Thus, specific overt acts are attributed to the Petitioner/Accused No.7. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and 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: 10. 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. 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9767 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 11. Hence, this criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025. 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9767 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9767 of 2025 Date:26.09.2025 KMS