APHC010280092026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4439/2026 Between: 1. LINGAM JOSHI SAI JASWANTH, S/O.LINGAM KUMAR VIJAY PRASAD,AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O.8-3-8/2,BHEMUNI GUMMAM STREET,ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court Buildings, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.39 of 2024 of SEB Police Station, Viskhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.02.2024 at about 18:15 hours, near Vinayaka Temple, Kumma Street, opposite Venkateswara Theatre, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District, the Enforcement Sub‑Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Anakapalli, acting on reliable information, intercepted a black Honda Activa 3G bearing No.AP31CX 3000, allegedly driven by one Kola Ganesh Satya Kireeti, who abandoned the vehicle and fled. Upon inspection, the raiding party discovered a gunny bag containing 115 nip bottles of “Manjeera Blue Premium Deluxe Whisky” of 180 ml each, along with an Aadhaar xerox and a black OPPO mobile phone in the vehicle’s dickey. A sample bottle was drawn for chemical analysis, and the contraband with the vehicle and articles was seized under due process, thereby establishing that the accused was engaged in unlawful possession and transportation of illicit liquor. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri B.V.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire investigation has been completed. The case is based on the confession of Accused No.1. The Petitioner is falsely implicated in this case; he has not committed any offence. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, it is urged that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2. 3 ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 4. Per contra, Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that the investigation is for want of arrest of Accused No.2. Accused No.1 was arrested and enlarged on regular bail. There are specific overt acts levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 and hence it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: 7. On perusal of the record, it is forthcoming that Accused No.1 was caught while transporting the liquor bottles, he revealed that for the sake of the Petitioner the liquor bottles were taken. There are specific allegations levelled by the Accused No.1 against the Petitioner. Provisions of Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 would clearly attract the Petitioner/Accused No.2. 8. Indeed, grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license for commission of a grave offence nor a shield or protection for the persons who have allegedly committed grave offence, and against whom specific overt acts are attributed, 4 as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi). 2 9. The case could not be finalized by the Investigating Officer as the investigation is pending for want of arrest of Petitioner/Accused No.2; for what sake the Petitioner had indulged in procuring huge quantity of liquor bottles from the Accused No.1 is to be ascertained. In other words, the source of procurement is to be elicited from the Petitioner/Accused No.2, for which purpose custodial interrogation is also required. Therefore, the request for grant of pre-arrest bail is not found convincing and reasonable. 10. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to consider the request of Petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail as the Petitioner is disentitled for the relief. 11. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.06.2026 VTS 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1