Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Kotta Sriramamurthy - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3382 of 2021
Decided On : 02-07-2021
Pre-Arrest Bail - Andhra Pradesh Excise Act - The court refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner based on the role attributed to him in the transportation of liquor bottles, despite his claim of false implication.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with a case involving the transportation of liquor bottles. The police stopped a car and found liquor bottles, leading to the arrest of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner based on the role attributed to him in the transportation of liquor bottles. The petitioner's claim of false implication was not accepted, and it was noted that all other accused except the petitioner were arrested.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail, considering the allegations against him and the progress of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the role attributed to the petitioner and his claim of false implication. It emphasized that the petitioner's readiness to surrender and seek bail before the lower court would be considered in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and disposed of the criminal petition, directing the petitioner to surrender before the lower court and move an application seeking bail, which would be considered on the same day.
JUDGMENT
Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner/A-1 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.4 of 2021 of Macherla Police Station, Guntur District, for the offences punishable under Sections 34(a) and 50-B (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act (Amendment 2020).
2. On 09.04.2021, on receipt of credible information, SEB Inspector along with his staff and mediators proceeded to Adigoppala village and while checking the vehicles at about 9.00 p.m. one white colour car was coming from Durgi to Adigoppala village, then the police stopped the car and searched the car in the presence of mediators and found liquor bottles in the Dikki of the car, then they arrested the accused No.1 and 2, who transporting the liquor bottles.
3. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the offence as alleged and he has falsely implicated in this case and he submits that he is ready to cooperate with the investigation.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that except the petitioner, all the other accused were arrested and investigation is in progress. The petitioner is not entitled for pre arrest bail because at the behest of the petitioner, all other accused were transporting liquor illegally.
6. Taking into consideration the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to him. But however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the Court below and move an application seeking bail. On such application if any filed, the Court below shall consider the said application on the same day, in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
8. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
