Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13437
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
J Yobu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No: 8289 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI TATA SINGAIAH GOUD
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court emphasized that granting anticipatory bail in serious cases may hinder ongoing investigations and facilitate evasion of justice.
Headnote:(A) Prohibition & Excise Amendment Act, 2020 - Sections 7-B, 8-A, 8-C(a) - This petition seeks anticipatory bail concerning allegations of illegal liquor production following a raid - Essential conditions pertaining to grant of bail and the implications of potential abscondence were analyzed - Petitioners claimed innocence, while prosecution indicated ongoing investigations - Court emphasized the serious nature of charges and prior conduct - Petition for bail was dismissed with liberty to apply post-surrender. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - The jurisdiction of High Court under this section to grant anticipatory bail was underscored, alongside procedural adherence in pending investigations. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, accused of producing illicit alcohol, were reported fleeing the scene during a police raid. Claims of false implication and their status as primary earners posed arguments for bail consideration.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld that all factors considered led to a rejection of bail, citing serious allegations against the petitioners.
Issues: Whether bail could be granted to petitioners given the pending investigation and serious nature of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded granting bail would facilitate evasion of justice given the seriousness of accusations and ongoing investigation.
Result: The criminal petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners were accused of being involved in illicit liquor production. (Para 3) |
| 2. the prosecution argued against bail due to ongoing investigations. (Para 5) |
| 3. court upheld the seriousness of the allegations in denying bail. (Para 7) |
This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.83 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Chittoor Urban, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7-B read with Sections 8-A and 8-C (a) of A.P.
Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 02-06-2025 at about 5.30 p.m. on reliable information about illegal preparation of illicitly distilled liquor, the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban, along with their staff and mediators, conducted a raid at Gurralamitta Area, Gudipala Mandal, where accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found near a ZR vehicle with two black rubber tubes. On seeing the officials from a distance, accused Nos. 2 ran away into bushes and accused No. 3 removed the tubes and escaped on a motorcycle. The police caught accused No. 1 at the spot and seized two black rubber tubes containing 30 liters of I.D. liquor and also found blue plastic drums with 400 liters of fermented jaggery wash meant for making illicit liquor.
Mr. Tata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that
3.
the petitioners are innocents of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of their family and they are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
4. Per contra, Mr.NeelotphalGanji learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on pre arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public
5.
Prosecutor.Perused the record.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are adverse
6.
antecedents reported against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that based on the confession of accused No. 1, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were arrayed in this case. As per the mediators' report and the version of the prosecution, the petitioners are the manufacturers of I.D. liquor. In the mediators' report, it was mentioned that the petitioners ran away from the scene of offence and they were thereupon identified by the mediators.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not
7.
inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners inasmuch as it would amount to license for the person against whom serious allegations and specific giving a overt acts are levelled and it would also amount to giving a shield or protection for commission of non-bailable offence per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab ^ and Sushila Aggarwal Vs.
^ (1980) 2 see 565 ■jKl State of DelhP. Hence, there are no merits in the criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, liberty is granted to the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 to surrender before the jurisdictional magistrate within a period of one (1) week from today and move an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Court concerned. On such surrender and on moving of such application, the jurisdictional Court concerned is
