APHC010149422026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 2285 & 2288 / 2026 Criminal Petition No.2285 of 2026: Between: MANTHRI GIRIDHAR REDDY, S/O. MANTHRI MAI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. 1-16, PATHA MULAKALACHERUVU, MULAKALACHERUVU, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DOUALA CITY. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.18 AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH PROHIBITION EXCISE INSPECTOR, MOLAKALACHERUVU, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Criminal Petition No.2288 of 2026: Between: DASARIPALLI JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S/O. DASARAPALLINARAYANA REDDY,R/O. 3-73, KADIRINATHINIKOTA,KADIRINATHUNIKOTA, CHITOOR, ANDHRA PRADESHPRESENTLY RESIDING AT DOUALA CITY, CAMEROON COUNTRY. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH PROHIBITION EXCISE INSPECTOR, MOLAKALACHERUVU, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The instant petitions under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) have been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners / Accused Nos.17 and 18, in connection with Crime No.98 of 2025 on the file of Prohibition & Excise Police Station, Molakalacheruvu, Annamayya District, which is registered for the offences under Sections 34(a) and 34(e) of A.P.Excise Act read with 7(B), 8(A), 8(B) and 8(C) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995. 2. Heard Sri K.Sitaram, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners are innocents of the offences alleged against them. It is further submitted that the Petitioners were not in the station as on the date of the alleged offences and they left for Cameroon, Douala City. Learned counsel would further submit that, only based on the confessional statement of Accused No.2. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that, apart from the confessional statement of Accused No.2, there is lot of evidence against the Petitioners, who got close acquaintance with Accused No.1. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have actively participated in the activity of managing the spurious liquor and were benefitted. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that, during the course of 3 investigation, the Investigating Officer collected CDRs and bank statements of the Petitioners which show their involvement in the alleged crime. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having considered the submissions of both sides and the material on record, this Court opines that the plea of the Petitioners regarding their absence from the station and alleged travel to Cameroon is a matter for trial. The record indicates that the case is not based solely on the confessional statement of Accused No.2, but is supported by prima facie material, including CDRs and bank statements, showing the Petitioners’ involvement and their association with Accused No.1 in the management of spurious liquor. 6. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one and grant of the same is the judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. Aditya Sarda,1 while dealing with grant of anticipatory bail in serious economic offences, held as follows: “18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court has consistently emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes. *** 23. Given the above settled legal position, it is no more resintegra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep- rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds. Therefore, such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country.” (emphasis supplied) 1 2025 SCC Online SC 764 4 7. In the light of the above judgment, nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, this Court finds no grounds to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners, at this stage. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:30.03.2026 Dinesh 5 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 2285 & 2288 of 2026 DATE:30.03.2026 Dinesh