The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is not a safeguard for individuals allegedly involved in ongoing criminal activities, especially with prior adverse records.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.327 of 2025 of Prohibition & Excise Police Station, Rajamahendravaram South, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 7-B read with 8-A of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 (for brevity ‘the APPA’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.07.2025, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT, Rajamahendravaram, along with his staff, and mediators proceeded to the scene of offence. At about 3:00 P.M., they reached the scene of offence at the forest beside Routhu Govinda Rao gari Cashew Mango garden bearing survey No.126 left side at a distance of 1 kilometer to road, the road leads to Srikrishnapatnam to Chakradwarabandam in Srikrishnapatnam Village of Rajanagaram Mandal. At the location, they detected the smell of fermented jaggery wash (FJ wash). Upon searching the premises, the team found 3800 ltrs of FJ wash i.e., 3200 ltrs of FJ wash in 16 plastic drums, each drum containing about 200 ltrs FJ wash (16X200=3200 ltrs) and also found 600 ltrs of FJ wash in 03 iron drums each containing about 200 ltrs FJ wash (03X200=600 ltrs), total 3200+600=3800 ltrs of FJ wash, which was fit for distillation of ID liquor. On enquiry in the presence of the mediators it came to know that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 are manufacturing ID liquor, who had previously been involved in ID liquor cases. In the presence of the mediator, a 500 ml sample was drawn for chemical analysis, and the remaining wash, along with the drums, was destroyed. An identity slip was affixed to the sample bottle. All actions were recorded under the cover of the mediator’s report, a case was registered.

3. Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they were falsely implicated in this case; they are sole breadwinners of their family; they are ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2.

4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not completed; if the petitioners are enlarged on pre-arrest bail, they would not be available for the investigation and they will repeat the same offence, and it is urged to dismiss the bail application.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are three (3) adverse similar antecedents against the petitioners on earlier occasion. They are: Crime No.118 of 2023, Crime No.431 of 2022 and Crime No.1082 of 2021.

7. As seen from the mediator’s report dated 12.07.2025, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram, recorded that the petitioners/accused No.1 & 2 are the manufacturers of the ID liquor. Granting of the pre-arrest bail to accused Nos.1 & 2 is not a shield or a license for having allegedly committed an offence, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab , (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi , (2020) 5 SCC 1 .

8. In view of the adverse antecedents against the petitioners and their specific alleged role played in this case, they are disentitled to get pre-arrest bail. Hence, this Court does not deem it fit to grant pre-arrest