APHC010133772026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2029/2026 Between:

1. K ARRI DURGA RAO, S/O.SURYA NARAYANA,AGED 51 YEARS,D.NO.12-17-18,BELLAMVARI VEEDHI,KANAKA DURGA GUDI, ARYAPURAM,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM,EAST GODHAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in crime No, 02 of 2026 dated 06-01-2026 on the file of the Proh and Excise Station Rajamahendravaram North, East Godavari District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. KADIYAM NEELAKANTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No: 2029 of 2026

Order:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2, in connection with Crime No.2 of 2026 of Rahamahendravaram (North) P & E Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences under Sections 7-B read with 8-B of AP Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. Heard Sri K. Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, as per the orders of the Director, Prohibition & Excise, Mangalagiri, based on the reliable information about ID liquor was being transported, the Excise Inspector along with his staff conducted patrolling at Mallayyapeta Area of Rajamahendravaram Urban, and found A1 in possession of 7 Liters of ID Liquor in 25 bottles of 200 ml, transporting the same in Scooty bearing No.AP 30 CG 7458. On enquiry, the A1 confessed that A2 is manufacturing and supplying the said contraband.

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the present crime. Only basing on the confession of A1, the present petitioner has been arrayed as A2. The petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and hence, prays to grant pre-arrest bail.

5. Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that investigation is nascent stage and petitioner is absconding. Apprehension of petitioner is required to know the facts of the case. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. A perusal of material on record would show that there is prima facie material against the petitioner herein that he is manufacturing the ID liquor and supplying to other accused. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that investigation is in progress and the petitioner is absconding.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another¹, it was observed that:

“When a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an F