APHC010722642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13629/2025 Between:

1. V EERAMALLA SABAR KUMAR ALIAS PANDU, S/O YEDUKONDALU, AGED 34 YEARS,PUNYAKSHATRAM VILLAGE ,RAJANAGARAM MANDAL EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.THROUGH PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM SOUTH,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT,AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13629 OF 2025 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.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.423 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. Heard Mr.Devasri Roshan K, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.11.2025 at 4.00 p.m., on reliable information, the Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF, Rajamahendravaram along with staff conducting raids for prohibition offences, they reached the scene of offence i.e., infront of house belongs to Veeramalla Posamma of Punyakshatram Village of Rajanagaram Mandal, they found one female person standing with a bottle holding in her right hand. On suspicion, the raid party tried to reach the person, on seeing the raid party the person tried to enter into her house, but P&ESI stopped the person and questioning her about the contents of plastic bottle, for which she stated that the bottle contains ID liquor. Then the raid party tried to secure mediators but in vain.

The raid party verified the plastic bottle and found 02 liters of ID liquor in 02 liters capacity plastic bottle. On questioning about her identifies and source of ID liquor and she revealed her identified as accused No.1 and she also stated that she purchased the ID liquor from her relative accused No.2 and she sells at her residence and she will get profit. Then the P&ESI arrested her and drawn one sample bottle with 300 ml of ID liquor and duly signed by departments persons and signed of accused under the cover of special report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner herein is Accused No.2 and that no specific overt acts are attributed to him in the present matter. It is further submitted that the investigation might have been completed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that except the confession of accused No.1 regarding the involvement of the petitioner, no material is collected against the petitioner/accused No.2. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to secure his presence for the purpose of investigation.

5. Mr. K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that the investigating officer is on the job to gather the information regarding the relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 and the investigation is at nascent stage, and vehemently oppose the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not