APHC010467312026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7815/2026 Between: 1. RELANGI SRINU ALIAS PILAKADU ALIAS CHINNODU, ,S/0 SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,C/0 GOWDAR/0 RAGHUNADHAPURAM VILLAGE,RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioner/Accused, for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.150 of 2026 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Rajamahendravaram 2 South, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7-B read with 8-A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. 2. Mr.B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that 16 adverse antecedents have been reported against the petitioner. He further submits that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3 5. As seen from the record, when the Enforcement Inspector, Rajamahendravaram South, along with his staff, reached the scene of offence, he found the petitioner/accused at the scene and four plastic drums containing 200 liters of FJ wash. Thereafter, on seeing the police, the petitioner/accused fled from the scene. 6. In the present case, the Petitioner has not disclosed in the petition the pendency of the previous antecedents against him. 7. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,1, wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication. 8. The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh stated in every application for bail presented to the High Court, the Petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not 12026 SCC Online 188 4 been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information. 9. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan’s case (supra 1), the request of the petitioner cannot be considered as there are specific allegations and overt acts attributed to the petitioner. Granting of pre-arrest bail is neither a licence nor permission or passport to commit crime, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)3. There are no merits in this case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.09.2026 BMS 2(1980) 2 SCC 565 3 (2020) 5 SCC 1