logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1402 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No.6281 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Chitikina Venkateswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, Amaravathi
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Parimi Rama Rayudu, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 03-08-2026
Head Note :-
A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 - Section 7(B) -
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 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.89 of 2026, for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) of the A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He, therefore, prayed to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail.

3. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition and submitted that, if the petitioner/accused is granted anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of his committing similar offences and hampering the investigation. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

5. On a perusal of the record, it appears that there are no similar adverse antecedents against the petitioner. The prosecution case against the petitioner is based on the report of the Excise officials, wherein it is alleged that the 300 litres of FJ wash belonged to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, due to political rivalry, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is aged about 31 years and is a permanent resident of East Godavari District, having a fixed place of abode.

6. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted at this stage. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may hamper the investigation or commit similar offences can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

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

                  i. In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

                  ii. The Petitioner/Accused shall make himself available for investigation as and when required;

                  iii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

                  iv. The Petitioner/Accused 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 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 shall surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer, if he states that he does not have passport, the Petitioner shall submit an affidavit to that effect.
 
  CDJLawJournal