Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12841
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
R AGE NAGENDRA PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Criminal Petition No: 8171/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DHEERA KANISHKA
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court balanced the severity of allegations against the accused's personal circumstances in granting bail under strict conditions.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 437 and 439 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Bail application - The petitioner sought bail for alleged offences related to wildlife conservation and possession of firearms - Accused claimed to be falsely implicated, highlighting familial hardships if detained - State opposed bail citing ongoing investigation and potential abscondence - Court determined the bail was warranted considering period of custody and conditions imposed. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Wildlife Conservation - The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations involving territorial trespass and illegal weapon possession, while noting that the accused had not harmed wildlife. (Paras 2, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of illegal entry into a reserved forest and possession of an unlicensed firearm, leading to his arrest and remand to custody.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was granted bail after considering his time in custody and ensuring stringent conditions are applied to mitigate risks of evasion.
Issues: Whether bail can be granted despite serious charges and ongoing investigations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted the balance between accountability in serious allegations and the personal circumstances of the accused, resolving in favor of bail under strict conditions.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused's alleged illegal actions leading to prosecution. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the accused's innocence and the prosecution's stance. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on the evidence and circumstances. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's decision regarding bail based on the detention period and conditions. (Para 7) |
| 5. outcome of the petition for bail. (Para 8) |
ORDER
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in OR.No.16/2025-26 of FRO Onipenta Range, Kadapa District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (1)(c)(ii)(vii) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 , Sections 9 read with 16 (a), 39, 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 , and Sections 5 (a), 7(a), and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Acts, 1959.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, along with one unidentified person, entered the Reserved Forest near Thuvvapalli Cheruvu with the intention of hunting wild animals and was found in possession of a country-made firearm. On being apprehended by the forest officials, the accused was allegedly found with a single-barrel gun and some covers. The accused was thereafter remanded to judicial custody.
3. Mr.Dheera Kanishka, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still at progressive stage and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law, and it is urged to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
6. As seen from the record, the petitioner was allegedly trespassed into the reserved forest with a country-made fire arm without there being any license. Of course, there was no allegation that he had killed any wild life in the forest. The petitioner was arrested on 24.06.2025, he has been in the judicial custody for the past 48 days.
7. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner/Accused No.1 in judicial custody for the past 48 days, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail with the following conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur.
ii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court.
iii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
iv. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.
v. The petition
