1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Crime No.65 of 2024 of Rapur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 47,379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’), Sections 20 (1)(c)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(x), 20(1)(d)(i)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 2016.
2. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. They are law-abiding citizens. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners and submitted that, though the charge sheet has already been filed, the accusations against the petitioners are well founded. Hence, he prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioners is that they were indulging in the transportation of twelve logs of red sanders wood, weighing about 315 Kgs, valued at Rs.2,80,000/- in the open market. The petitioners were arrested on 21.06.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the past 47 days. After thorough investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 23.07.2026, showing that one accused has been absconding. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner/Accused No.2. There are three adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner/Accused No.1.
6. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2020) 11 SCC 648), at para No.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail at this stage. Hence, the petition insofar as the petitioner/Accused No.1 is concerned is dismissed.
8. With regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.2, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail, subject to some stringent conditions
9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed with the following stringent conditions:
i. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trail of cases relating to Red Sanders Smuggling, Tirupati.
ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.
iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in the commission of any offence in future.
v. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 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.
