IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Ketha Nagaraju – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Crl. P. No. 1340 of 2021
Decided On : 08-03-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 – Section 7(B), 8(B) - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest - Prohibition of Boot Legging - Penalty for sale, export, import and transport of alcoholic liquor -Case of prosecution is Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, C.I. of Police, along with their staff proceeded to Village limits and found one person coming by a bike and on seeing Police he left the bike and ran away - Police could identify him as petitioner - On inspection of bike, Police found 10 liters of ID Arrack in a bag which was hanged to side of bike and same were seized - Basing on same, present crime is registered –Held, Court further submits that court is falsely implicated in crime on instigation of local leaders only to harass petitioner - Hence, his request for pre-arrest bail may be considered - Submissions of learned Counsel for petitioner and fact that nowhere in special report it is disclosed how Police personnel succeeded in identifying petitioner as accused who was involved in similar cases, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner - Petition allowed.
ORDER :
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 432 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau, Station Polavaram registered for the offences punishable under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 23.10.2020 at about 5:30 p.m., the Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, C.I. of Police, Polavaram alongwith their staff proceeded to Tadipudi Village limits and found one person coming by a bike and on seeing the Police he left the bike and ran away. The Police could identify him as the petitioner. On inspection of the bike, the Police found 10 liters of ID Arrack in a bag which was hanged to side of the bike and the same were seized. Basing on the same, the present crime is registered.
3. Heard Sri Kancharlapalli Siva, 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 is no way concerned with the alleged offence and he is not the owner of the bike. He further submits that he is falsely implicated in the crime on the instigation of local leaders only to harass the petitioner. Hence, his request for pre-arrest bail may be considered.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that investigation is not yet completed and opposes the bail application.
6. Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the fact that nowhere in the special report it is disclosed how the Police personnel succeeded in identifying the petitioner as the accused who was involved in similar cases, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 432 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau, Station Polavaram on condition of executing self-bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau, Polavaram.
8. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's role in the alleged offense and his claim of false implication, highlighting the importance of considering the specific circumstances and evide....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of injuries sustained and the presence of a case and counter case can be influential factors in granting pre-arrest bail.
The court's decision was influenced by the role attributed to the petitioners and their alleged involvement in the illegal sale of liquor in determining their entitlement to pre-arrest bail.
The absence of specific overt acts against the petitioner and the previous grant of bail to co-accused influenced the court's decision to grant pre-arrest bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allowing pre-arrest bail based on the reasonable belief of imminent arrest ....
The absence of specific overt acts against the petitioner in the nature of allegations led to the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.