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.18 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.129 of 2025 in Chapadu Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 109, 132, 49 read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), Sections 20(1)(C)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)(x), 20(d)(i)(a)(b)(ii)(a)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Sandal Wood & Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri V.Nitesh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire prosecution case against Accused No.18 rests solely upon the alleged confessional statements of co‑accused Nos.1 to 6, which, in law, cannot be treated as substantive evidence to implicate the Petitioner. No recovery has been affected from the possession of the Petitioner, nor was he present at the scene of offence. The allegations are omnibus in nature and bereft of specific attribution. In the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence linking the Petitioner to the alleged smuggling or rioting, the invocation of penal provisions against him is manifestly unsustainable and amounts to abuse of process of law.

4. It is further contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated at the instance of third parties and political influence, without any nexus to the alleged crime. The Petitioner is a law‑abiding citizen, belonging to a respectable family, and earns his livelihood as a driver of an auto‑rickshaw. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. The learned Counsel submits that the registration of the case against the Petitioner is only for statistical purposes and to wreak vengeance, and therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against him would result in grave miscarriage of justice. The learned Counsel further submits that the investigation in the matter has already been completed except for filing of the charge sheet, and material witnesses have been examined. Hence, custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is neither warranted nor necessary. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner assures that there is no possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence and it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

5. Per contra, Mrs. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the offences alleged are of grave and heinous nature, involving rioting, attempt to murder, criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their lawful duties, criminal conspiracy, abetment, and trespass into reserve forest areas. The accused persons, including the petitioner, are alleged to have felled live red sander trees, committed theft thereof, and attempted to smuggle the contraband by loading it into vehicles. The seizure of 52 red sander logs weighing 1087.900 kilograms, along with two cars and a motor cycle, clearly establishes the organized character of the crime and its deleterious impact on forest wealth and public order. In such circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the Petitioner’s involvement, as disclosed in the confessional statements of co‑accused, cannot be lightly brushed aside.

6. It is further urged that the investigation is still pending, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative to unearth the larger conspiracy and to trace the network of smugglers engaged in illegal transportation of red sanders. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that enlargement of the petitioner on anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and embolden the accused to abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence. Considering the gravity of the offences, the organized nature of the smuggling racket, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, the learned Public Prosecutor urges that the anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

7. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner is that he, along with other accused persons, entered into a criminal conspiracy to indulge in rioting, attempted to commit murder by driving vehicles towards police personnel, used criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their lawful duties, trespassed into the reserve forest without permission, cut live red sander trees, committed theft thereof, and attempted to smuggle the contraband by loading the red sander logs into vehicles for transportation; and that his name surfaced during investigation on the basis of the confessional statements of co‑accused Nos.1 to 6, who were apprehended at the spot along with the seizure of 52 red sander logs weighing 1087.900 kilograms, two cars, one motor cycle, and other incriminating material.

8. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, it is of the view that the offences alleged are grave in nature, involving rioting, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, and illegal felling and transportation of red sanders, which have far‑reaching consequences on public order and forest wealth. The Petitioner has been named in the confessional statements of co‑accused, and the investigation is still pending with respect to several absconding accused, thereby necessitating custodial interrogation to unearth the larger conspiracy. In such circumstances, this Court finds that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and may result in the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence.

9. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab((1980) 2 SCC 565) and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)( (2020) 5 SCC 1), that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts.

10. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioner, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’. The allegations prima facie discloses a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected.

11. Hence, this criminal petition is dismissed.