| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1556
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 6721 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Mohammad Haneef Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By Its Public Prosecutor, Amaravati |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: D. Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 17-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 302(2) read with 3(5), 49, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 20(1)(d)(i)(a) read with 20(1)(c)(ii) read with 20(1)(c)(ii) read with 20(1)(c)(iv) read with 20(1)(c)(x), 36(a) read with 32(A), 29(4)(a)(i)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967
2. Catch Words:
- Pre‑arrest bail
- Anticipatory bail
- Bail conditions
- Investigation
- Absconding
3. Summary:
The petitioner, accused No. 4, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking pre‑arrest bail for alleged offences under the BNS and the APF Act. The petitioner claims innocence and asserts that the FIR does not name him, relying on confessions of co‑accused that he lacked knowledge of the smuggled red sanders. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the nascent stage of investigation and risk of absconding. After examining the record, the Court noted the petitioner’s limited involvement and the seriousness of the allegations, and decided to grant bail with stringent conditions. Conditions include furnishing a bond, regular appearance before the SHO, travel restrictions, non‑interference with witnesses, and surrender of passport. The petition is therefore allowed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. 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.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.34 of 2025 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati District, was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302(2) read with 3(5), 49, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) Section 20(1)(d)(i)(a) read with 20(1)(c)(ii) read with 20(1)(c)(ii) read with 20(1)(c)(iv) read with 20(1)(c)(x), 36(a) read with 32(A), 29(4)(a)(i)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for brevity ‘the APF Act’).
2. Mr.D. Purna Chadra Reddy, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the Police. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.
3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is further urged that if the Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a strong likelihood of his absconding and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.4 and is the owner of the lorry bearing No.KA 70 3878. Accused No.2 is the driver of the said lorry. The lorry was hired to one Sasank Maya, who has not been shown as an accused as of now. Accused No.3, by name Subramanyam, is stated to be the main smuggler. The role of the Petitioner came to light based on the confessions of Accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 themselves revealed that Accused No.4 had no knowledge that his vehicle was being used for transportation of nine red sanders wood logs weighing about 153 Kgs. The name of the Petitioner is not found in the FIR. Of course, the FIR is neither exhaustive nor an encyclopedia of the entire facts and circumstances of the prosecution case. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the vehicle was kept for about two days at the Forest Office, Giddalur, and thereafter, it was taken to the Task Force Office, Tirupati, and a false case was foisted against the Petitioner.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.4, with some stringent conditions.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:
i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;
ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required;
iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the Charge Sheet.
iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not leave the limits of the Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
v. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.
vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
|
| |
