APHC010555192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10798/2025 Between:

MANYAM YESU, S/0 SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 42 YEARS, R/0 PUNYAKSHATRAM VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, Eligh Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

TATA SINGAIAH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.373 of 2025 in Prohibition and Excise, Rajamahendravaram South Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment)

Act No.18 of 2020.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner, based on the confession of his wife/Accused No. 1, is that he prepares illicit ID arrack, which his wife sells in retail in the local villages. The wife/Accused No.1 was already arrested and later released on bail. There are eight similar criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot and he was not present at the scene of offence. He has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. Considering that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner in the special report, this Court feels that the petitioner is dis-entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail. The grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license for the commission of a grave offence nor a shield or protection for the persons who have allegedly committed grave offence, and against whom specific overt acts are attributed, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)., (2020) 5 SCC 1

5. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to consider the request of Petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail as the Petitioner is disentitled for the relief.

6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall make endeavor to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving sufficient opportunity to both sides within a period of one (01) week.

________________________

Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

PRA

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10798 of 2025

PRA