IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR MONDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER```-`` TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: .\ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA i CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10160 OF 2025 ul`llV[]IVAL r[ I I I IuN Nu: flu-IOU ur I:uJ£O Between: i-i`3.\``.`- Karamala Mallikarjuna @ MaIIi, S/o late Nagaiah, aged 35 years, Nagasanipalli Village and panchayath Khajipeta Mandal, Kadapa District Petitio her/A7 AND The State ofAndhra Pradesh, rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati, Guntur District,Through SHO RSASTF P.S. Tirupati. Respondent/Comp]ajnant Petition under sections 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the cl-rcumstances stated in the affI-daVl't filed in support Of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioner/A7 on bail in connection with crime No. 30 of 2024 of RSASTF PS, TirupatI' . The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed jn support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MANTAPAMPALLE RAMPRASAD, Advocate for the Petitl'oner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent, the Court made the following ORDER / E=ffiE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10160 OF 2025 [3521] Between : KARAMALA MALLIKARJUNA ALIAS MALLI, S/O LATE NAGAIAH, AGED 35 'YEARS, NAGASANIPALLI VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH KHAJIPETA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati] Guntur Distrl'ct, Through SHO RSASTF P.S. Tirupati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused.- 1. MANTAPAMPALLE RAMPRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : The Criminal Petition has been fl-led under sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevI'ty [the BNSSJ), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.7 on bail I-n crime No.30 of 2024 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati, registered agajrlst the petitioner/Accused No.7 herein for the of'fence punishable under Sections 379 read with 34 of Indian penal code, (for brevity flFC'), 12O-B, 109 of {IPC', Section 20(1)(d)(1)(a) read with 20(1)(c) ii, iii,iv, x, 36(a) read with 32-A, 29(4)(a)(i) of A.P.Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Mater-lal averments stemming from the Prosecution are that On 28.04.2024 at about 9.00 p.m at Errabavi Cheruvu Rastha, near Chandanaala Bodu, ltukalapalli Forest Beat, the Police along With Staff FBO, FSO while on combined RS combing duty by checking entry and exit, dumping and loading points towards savichettypalli Jyothi road side, reached tO the scene Of offence, where they noticed one lorry two motor cycles, some persons loading some logs. The Police caught them and seized the Red Sanders Logs 101 in Nos. and reg-lstered the above Case. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Mantapampalle Ramprasad, 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 pr,-ma fac,-e 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 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. lt is further Submitted that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Nagasanipalli Village and Panchayat, Khajipeta Mandal, Kadapa District 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. ln view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OFTHE STATE: 5. Per con£ra, 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 petitione`r on bail would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative process and may engender delib;rate 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 impeding the administration of I-uStiCe and Vitiating the evidentiary foundation of the case. lt is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. €`-` _\_ •GSf# 6. ln view of the gravity and allegations, COuPled With the PO{ential threat posed to the integrity of the investigat'lon, 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 subm'lssions advanced by both the learned Counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial rlarrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: ['whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?" ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.7 as seen from the record is that he engaged coolies for transporting into the Reserved Forest and got cut down 101 Red Sanders Logs, weighing 2959 Kgs for alleged smuggling. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that so far 8 witnesses are examined. They are all official witnesses. Material portion of investigation in SO far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, is substantially completed. There are two adverse criminal similar antecedents reported against the Petitioner one is of the year 2019 and another one is of the year 2021. 10. Chances of the Petitioner threatening the witnesses Or hampering the investigation or tampering the evidence may not arise. The Petitioner is a r= E=+*ick' permanent resident of NagasanipaIIi Village and Panchayat, Khajipe{a Mandal, Kadapa District. He has got fixed a-bode. There is no scope for him either flee from the clutches of law. The Petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 51 days. ll. Mere pendency of criminal cases against the Petitioner is not a sole ground for rejecting the request for grant of regular or pre-arrest bail as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhafaar 7T,-war,- v, Sfafe of U.P. and others7.The Petitioner shall be presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved. CONCLUSION: 12. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/ Accused No.7 on bail with the following strI'ngent COnditiOnS: i. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 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 each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of FI'rSt Class-Gum-Special Court for Trial of Cases relating to Red Sanders Smuggling, Tirupati. ` \ 12020 (ll) SCC 648 \ 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 Colt,rt. 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, d'lrectly 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. vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 shall surrender h.IS Passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affi-davit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SD/-SK MD RAFI DEPgrsTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First class-cum-SPI. Court for trial of cases relating to Red Sanders Smuggling, Tirupati. 2. The Superintendent, sub-central Jail, Tirupati. 3. The SHO RSASTF P.S. Tirupati. 4. One CC to SRl. MANTAPAMPALLE RAMPRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Hl'gh Couh ofA.P [OPUC] 6. One spare copy psk y + \ HIGH ICOURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 13/10/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10160 of 2025 ALLOWED i4 0tTZB25 pa \l: ~g;1//JI/