K Bhaskar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21080

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21080

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J
K Bhaskar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4005/2026

Important Points

Anticipatory bail may be denied if there is prima facie evidence of involvement and the accused has criminal antecedents, particularly when the investigation is pending and there is a risk of tampering with evidence or recidivism.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail

Act Referred

Bharatiya Narik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.482
Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1995: S.7(B), S.8(A), S.8(B), S.8(C)

Headnote

The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under S. 482 of the Bharatiya Narik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for alleged offences under S. 7(B) r/w 8(A), 8(B), 8(C) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1995. The prosecution's case is that the petitioner supplied ID liquor to co-accused, as revealed in a confession statement, although no contraband was recovered directly from the petitioner. The court found that prima facie material existed to link the petitioner to the crime. The primary issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail given the reliance on a co-accused's confession and the absence of direct seizure. The court reasoned that the presence of three criminal antecedents and the fact that the investigation is still pending create a risk of tampering with evidence and the commission of similar offences, thereby outweighing the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kanderi Chethan
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor

Table of Content
1. allegations of illegal liquor supply based on co-accused confession and statutory charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. balance between lack of direct seizure and the impact of criminal antecedents on bail eligibility. (Para 4 , 5)
3. denial of anticipatory bail due to prior criminal history and the need to protect the integrity of a pending investigation. (Para 6 , 7)

ORDER :

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Narik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.6 of 2026, on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Nagiri, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7(B) r/w 8(A), 8(B), 8(C) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1995.

2. Heard Sri Kanderi Chethan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.03.2026 at about 10:00 A.M., the Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Nagiri, along with staff, while conducting routine watch, reached Mangadu dumping yard on Kakavedu to Iruguvai road and found A1 on a two wheeler with a brown bag containing 20 litres of ID liquor intended for sale. On seeing the police, A1 tried to escape but was caught, and on enquiry he stated in the presence of mediators that A2 (Thangaraju) had given him the liquor and the vehicle to deliver it to his house. It was further revealed that A2 had purchased the ID liquor from petitioner/A3. The Excise officials seized the 20 litres of ID liquor along with the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 12-R-7765 under cover of panchanama, registered Crime No.6/2026 under the A.P. Prohibition Act, and sent a sample of 180 ml to the Chemical Examiner for analysis.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present case is lodged against the petitioner/A3 basing on the confession statement of the co-accused and that no contraband was seized from his possession. It is further submitted that the petitioner/A3 is in no way concerned with the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that prima facie allegations are made out against the petitioner/A3. She would further submit that there are three antecedents against the petitioner/A3. It is further submitted that the investigation is still pending and if the petitioner/A3 is granted anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and committing similar offences. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case rests only on the confession of co-accused and that no contraband was seized from the petitioner, the prosecution has pointed out that there is prima facie material indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the offence. It is also noted that there are three antecedents against the petitioner/A3. Further, since the investigation is still pending, granting anticipatory bail at this stage may affect the course of investigation. In view of these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.