Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1087
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
Vadde Sreenivasulu S/o.V. Jayaram - Petitioner/Accused
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Petition No: 11080 of 2025
Decided On : 05-11-2025
Petitioner/accused: Yattapu Bharath Kumar Reddy
Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor
Pre-arrest bail should not be granted if specific serious allegations exist, as it would shield the accused from accountability.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment) Act, 2025 - Criminal Petition for pre-arrest bail - Petitioner alleged to be involved in illegal liquor business with specific overt acts recorded against him - Pre-arrest bail denied owing to the severity of allegations and past antecedents - Liberty granted to surrender and seek bail from Jurisdictional Magistrate. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Considerations for granting pre-arrest bail include nature and gravity of accusations - Bail should not shield individuals against serious allegations. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, aged 40 and ex-serviceman, faces allegations of illegal liquor trade, linked to confessions from co-accused. Specific overt acts ascribed to him indicate substantial involvement in the crime.
Findings of Court:
Pre-arrest bail is not granted due to the specific accusations and the petitioner’s prior criminal history. Petitioner's liberty to surrender and apply for bail before Jurisdictional Magistrate is acknowledged.
Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner should be granted pre-arrest bail considering the specific accusations and past antecedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that granting pre-arrest bail would equate to shielding the accused from serious allegations, underscoring the need for thorough examination of accusations.
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed; liberty given to surrender and apply for bail.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and defendant involvement. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. representation and procedural compliance in the court. (Para 2) |
| 3. court’s reasoning against granting bail. (Para 4) |
| 4. consideration of defendant's options for pre-arrest bail. (Para 5) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition with specific instructions. (Para 6) |
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.3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.250 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Ananthapuramu, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 34 (a) (1) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment) Act, 2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.3 is that he along with Accused No.2 have been indulged in illegal liquor business and some antecedents were reported against the petitioner/A-3 vide a case in F.I.R.No.358 of 2024 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Ananthapuramu. The petitioner/A-3 is aged about 40 years and he is an ex-service man. The role of the petitioner has come to the light based on the confession given by the Accused No.1. There are specific overacts against the petitioner/Accused No.3.
4. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner/ A-3, 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 as specific accusation is levelled, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab , (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 .
5. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/A-3, this Court does not deem it fit to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner/A-3 to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and move an appropriate application for his release before the Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned.
6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner/A-3 to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate for enlarging him on bail. On filing of such application, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of the application on its own merits in accordance with law by (1980) 2 SCC 565 giving due and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
