APHC010505852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9937/2025 Between: 1. PALASA SANTHAMMA, W/O.GANGARAJU, AGED 48 YEARS,D.NO.3- 169/1,C-BLOCK, RAJAMUNDRYRURAI.EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. PALASA SURYA CHANDRA RAO, S/O.GANGARAJU, AGED 35 YEARS,FLOT NO.102,G-8,D.NO.3-169/1,C-BLOCK RAJAMUNDRYRURAL,EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati. Through Prohibition and Excise PS, Rajamahendravaram South, East Godavari District, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 APHC010505962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9939/2025 Between: 1. BOTTU MANIKANTA, S/O.BOTTU DURGA RAO, AGED 22 YEARS,D.NO.104-11-399, GOWTHAMI NAGAR, D BLOCK,HUKUMPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARANNRURAL,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati. Through Prohibition and Excise PS, Rajamahendravaram South, East Godavari District, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No. 9937 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners- accused Nos. 2 and 3 and Criminal Petition No. 9939 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner-accused No. 4, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to them in crime No. 369 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South, East Godavari District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7-B read with Section 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. 2. Since both the criminal petitions arise out of the same crime number, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. On 16-09-2025 at about 6.45 a.m., in D.No. 3-169/1, C Block in Satellite City, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector found and arrested accused No. 1 while she was in possession of 55 polythene sachets, each sachet containing 200 ml. of I.D. liquor, 9 plastic bottles, each bottle containing 500 ml. of I.D. liquor and one polythene packet containing 5 litres of I.D. liquor. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 4. Sri Dasari Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. The petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 4 5. It is further submitted that the petitioners have permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of their 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 petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 6. 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 petitioners on pre-arrest bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioners, 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 petitioners 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 petitioners do not deserve the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 5 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. 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 petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had indulged in preparation of I.D. liquor with the help of other accused. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners, without approaching learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance, directly approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail and there is no special case shown or extraordinary circumstance established. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal C and another v. State of Kerala and another1 held at para Nos. 7 to 9 as under: “7.The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 CrpC in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case. 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre-arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number 1 SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6588 of 2025 6 of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/extra-ordinary circumstances." 11. In Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para No. 6 as under: "6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant- complainant as a party." 12. In view of the fact that the petitioners have not approached learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance and directly approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail without establishing any special case or showing extraordinary circumstance, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief. However, the petitioners are permitted to move an appropriate application before learned Sessions Judge concerned for grant of pre-arrest bail. 2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17805 of 2024 etc. 7 13. The criminal petitions are accordingly disposed of. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 07-10-2025, JSK 8 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 9937 AND 9939 OF 2025 DATE: 07-10-2025 JSK