APHC010489402025 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: 9637/2025 Between: Mohammad Khursheed Khan Alias Kurshid Khan ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: D. Purnachandra Reddy Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.7 on bail in Crime No.33 of 2024 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.7 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’) and Section 36(a) read with 32A, Section 29(4)(a)(i), Section 44(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9637 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 06.06.2024 at about 6.00 a.m., the Forest Range Officer (FRO), on credible information, along with his staff and mediators, conducted vehicle checks at Anjaneyapuram Forest Check Post, Karakambadi Forest Beat, Tirupati District. A car and a lorry approaching from Kadapa were intercepted, and some occupants attempted to flee. The FRO’s team apprehended three persons from the car and the lorry driver. While nothing was found in the car, inspection of the lorry revealed 164 red sanders wood pieces (152 scantlings and 12 round logs), allegedly earlier used for house construction. On interrogation, the accused confessed their involvement. The officials seized the red sanders, the car, and the lorry, arrested Accused Nos.1 to 4, and registered Cr.No.33/2024 at RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati District, for offences under Sections 120-B, 109 IPC, 36(a) r/w 32-A, 29(4)(a)(i), and 44(i) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, and took up investigation. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prima facie material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioner to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family and that 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9637 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 his incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to comply with any condition that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to impose while considering the prayer for grant of bail. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and there exists no apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioner has extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. It is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necessitate custodial interrogation, and that the imposition of appropriate conditions would suffice to secure the ends of justice. In view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, with several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that the premature enlargement of the Petitioner on bail would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner. The prosecution further raises an apprehension that, if released, the Petitioner may exert undue influence upon, or intimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9637 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 impeding the administration of justice and vitiating the evidentiary foundation of the case. It is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. 6. In view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.7 is that he arranged his lorry for transportation of old red sanders logs for the other accused. Accused Nos.1 to 4, in their confessional statements, stated that the petitioner had hired his lorry for the said transportation. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested at the spot, and it was revealed that the lorry used for transportation belonged to the petitioner. The petitioner was later arrested on execution of a PT warrant and has been in judicial custody 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9637 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 for the past 80 days, having been remanded on 08.07.2025. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner has two adverse antecedents in Crime Nos.102 and 160 of 2023. 9. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused No.7 is presumed to be innocent until the guilty is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 at para No.7 observed that criminal similar adverse antecedents cannot be basis for refusal of bail. The petitioner is a permanent resident of H.No.142, Guru Nanak Nagar, Baieswara Dairy Police Station, Badili Post, Delhi, and has a fixed place of abode. The investigation, insofar as the petitioner’s role is concerned, has been completed. Seven witnesses have been examined so far, and the period of custodial interrogation is also completed. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.7, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioner/Accused No.7, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.7 on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to the executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- 1 (2020) 11 SCC 648 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9637 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Trail of Cases relating to Red Sander Smuggling, Tirupati. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 shall appear before the Station House Officer, RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 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. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 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. 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9637 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 vii. Petitioner/Accused No.7 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. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:26.09.2025 KMS 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9637 of 2025 Dated 26.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9637 OF 2025 26.09.2025 KMS