Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14715 (AP)

G Magesh Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/240/2026 · 2026-01-22

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010015152026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 240/2026 Between: 1. G MAGESH KUMAR, S/O GOPALA KRISHNA,AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC TRAVEL BUSINESS,R/O D.NO. 121/2, MIDDLE STREET, METTU PIRANCHERI,TIRANCHERI TIRUNALVELI, TAMILANADU STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to Grant Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.9 and direct the Station House Officer, Pulivendula U/G Police Station, Kadapa District to enlarge the bail in the event of arresting the Petitioner/Accused No.9 in Crime No.291 of 2024 on the file of the Pulivendula U/G Police Station, Kadapa District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 240/2026 ORDER : The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.9 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.291 of 2024 on the file of the Pulivendula U/G Police Station, Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the AP Excise Act. 2. Heard Mr.P.V.Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 30.08.2024 at 2.00 PM at Rayalapuram Thummalapalli Village, Pulivendula Mandal, on Pulivendula Muddanur Main Road and reported on the same day at 5.30 PM in which Inspector of Police, Pulivendula U/G Police Station along with his staff have arrested the accused Nos. 3 to 8 while they were transporting nonduty paid illicit liquor which is purchased from Goa. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 absconded from the scene of offence on seeing the police party. The police have seized the illicit liquor and the vehicles under the cover of mediators’ report. Hence, the crime. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the owner of the vehicle. He would further submit that Accused Nos.3 3 to 8 are arrested and released on bail. Basing only on the confession statement of the Accused No.6, who is the driver of the vehicle, the petitioner was implicated as Accused No.9 in this matter. It is alleged against the petitioner that on the instructions of the petitioner only, the driver transported the 13,008 liquor bottles in the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that except the confession statement, nothing is there against the petitioner and most of the investigation might have completed. The petitioner has nothing to do with the offence and finally prays for release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Investigation is at crucial stage. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally submits that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of material placed on record, in the light of the nature and gravity of the offence alleged as well as the stage of the investigation, it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 23.01.2026 UPS 4 172 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 240/2026 Dt:23.01.2026 UPS