APHC010419132026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6897/2026 Between: VELUGANTI GANGARAJU, S/O VELUGANTI VENKATA RAMANA, AGE 24 YEARS, AGRIEULTURE COOLIE, R/O D. NO.7-63, VINAYAKUDI TEMPLE STREET, RAGHUNADHAPURAM SRI RAMAPURAM POST, PALACHARLA VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh , Station House Officer, Prohibition Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram - South, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: SAMBHU PRASAD PEDIREDDI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6897 of 2026 Dated 18.08.2026 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.434 of 2025 of Rajamahendravaram South Prohibition and Excise Station, East Godavari District, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 7-B read with 8-B of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. 2. Mr.Sambhu Prasad Peddireddi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the innocent of the alleged offence. He is a law- abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. It is further submitted that, due to political rivalry between the two groups, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, 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 pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6897 of 2026 Dated 18.08.2026 ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. There are six adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. Hence, 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. 5. As seen from the record, the case was registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 on the allegation that he was involved in the possession of 33 litres of I.D. liquor. The petitioner is a permanent resident of East Godavari District and has got fixed abode. There are six adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. 6. 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. 12026 SCC Online 188 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6897 of 2026 Dated 18.08.2026 7. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the petitioner against whom specific and serious allegations have been made, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)3. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.08.2026 RSI 2(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6897 of 2026 Dated 18.08.2026 76 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6897 of 2026 Date: 18.08.2026 RSI