APHC010664022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12748/2025 Between:

Shaik Khadar Sharif Alias Laddu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. MADHU SUDHAN P Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

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 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.188 of 2025 of Srikalahasti I Town Police Station, Tirupati District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P.

Excise Act and Section 9(1) of A.P.Gaming Act.

2. Perused the record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Mr. P. Madhu Sudhan, learned counsel for the petitioner/proposed accused, submits that there are no adverse criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave confessional statements against the present petitioner, allegedly due to earlier animosity. The petitioner has neither committed nor indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has got fixed abode. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. He is ready to abide by any condition that this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit in the event of grant pre- arrest bail. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, Mr. Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that there is no information regarding adverse criminal antecedents of a similar nature against the petitioner and that the investigation is still incomplete. He therefore urges this Court to dismiss the petition.

5. On perusal of the record, it is seen that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of 16 beer bottles without any licence or proof of duty paid and were arrested on the spot. They gave confessional statements implicating the present petitioner. The petitioner has not yet been impleaded as Accused No. 3. However, his name finds mention in the mediators‟ report.

The alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment up to five years. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Tirupati District. He has got fixed abode. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. If the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is no likelihood of his evading the process of law. The material portion of the investigation has been completed. Except for the confessional statements of the co-accused, no substantial material is presently available against the petitioner.

6. In this context, it is apposite to refer the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh¹, at Para Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under:

“27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta an