(Prayer: 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/Accused No. 19, on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.45/2022, Singarayakonda Police Station and pass)

1. The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioner, who is Accused No.19 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.45/2022 of Singarayakonda Police Station, Prakasham District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 143, 464, 465, 467, 471 and 420 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’), Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity ‘the ITAct’), Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations)Act, 1957 (for brevity ‘the MMDR Act’) and Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Conservation Rules, 1966.

2. Case of the prosecution is that on 15.02.2022, at 04:35 hours, the accused No.1/Kodali Srinu, alleged to be the principal organizer, along with other unidentified individuals, was found unlawfully transporting granite blockson National Highway 16, specifically at the Emergency Landing Area near Kanumalla Cross Road, Singarayakonda Village. The granite blocks were being conveyed in four lorries bearing registration numbers TN04AU2961, TN 47 S 3990, TN 05 AS 3523, and TN 20 BM 3765. Said transportation was carried out without obtaining the requisite permits or licenses from the competent authority and without payment of the applicable statutory taxes, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and amounting to an act of cheating and evasion. It is further alleged that the complainant, N. Obula Reddy, Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole, upon intercepting the vehicles and verifying the absence of legal documentation, seized the granite blocks along with the lorries involved. Subsequently, on 17.02.2022 at 18:00 hours, he lodged a formal complaint at the jurisdictional police station, seeking initiation of legal proceedings against the accused.

3. Heard Sri Karthik Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record.

4. Sri Karthik Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel would further submit that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.8773 of 2025 granted bail to the accused No.18 and the present petitioner herein also stands on the same footing and prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.19 in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed.

6. Upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, it is found that Accused No.19 was neither named in the FIR nor identified as an organizer, seller, or purchaser in the alleged illegal transportation of granite blocks. His implication in the case was solely based on the confessional statements of the lorry drivers, which, at this stage, lacked corroborative evidence and did not establish any direct nexus between Accused No.19 and the commission of the alleged offence. This Court observed that mere reference in a co-accused’s confession, without independent verification or recovery, cannot form the sole basis for custodial detention and interrogation. Furthermore, similarly placed co-accused Accused Nos.5, 7, 11, 13 and 18 has been granted anticipatory bail. In light of the principle of parity and the absence of any overt act attributed to Accused No.19, the Court was of the view that custodial detention was unwarranted. It was also observed that the investigation had substantially progressed and the seizure of material evidence had already been effected, thereby reducing the risk of tampering or obstruction.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.19.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:

                  i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.19 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

                  ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.19 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required;

                  iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.19 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

                  iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.19 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.

                  v. The Petitioner/Accused No.19 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

                  vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.19 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.