Mr.Silaparasetti Venkata Ramana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8110 AP

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

     CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.8132, 8117 and 8119 OF 2022

COMMON ORDER:-

       These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") to enlarge the

petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with crime

Nos.842, 857 and 1010 of 2022 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Peddapuram, East Godavari District.


2.     The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in the above crimes.


3.     Crime No.842 of 2022 is registered for the offences

punishable under Section 7-B read with 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.


4.     Crime No.857 of 2022 is registered for the offence punishable

under Section 7-B read with 8(A) & 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition

(Amendment) Act, 2020.


5.     Crime No.1010 of 2022 is registered for the offence

punishable under Section 7-B read with 8(A) & 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.


6.     The above crimes were registered basing on the confession

statement of Accused Nos.1 and 2.
                                      2


7.    The facts of above crimes are inter-linked. Therefore, they are

considered and decided by this common order.


      The facts of the case in brief are:

8.    On 27.04.2022, 29.04.2022 and 17.06.2022, the Sub Inspector

of Special enforcement Bureau Station, Peddapuram and Kakinada,

East Godavari District, respectively, along with staff and mediators

reached the scene of offence and found 140 liters of ID liquor, 50 liters

of ID liquor and 30 liters of ID liquor and 1000 liters of FJ wash,

respectively and seized one Hero Honda Glamour bike and the said

liquor. Basing on the confession of A1 & A2, A3 was arrayed and the

present crimes were registered.


9.    Heard Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, contends that

the petitioner is a merchant doing business in jagerry. Learned

counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of Composite High

Court reported in "Ulli Bhaskar S/o Suraiah Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra

Pradesh". Further, the petitioner being a licenced trader is entitled to

carry on business and selling jaggery is part of his business. It is

contended that he has been falsely implicated in the present crimes

basing on the confession statement of A1 & A2 and the same is

inadmissible. It is further contended that the earlier bail applications

got filed by the petitioner were dismissed on 01.09.2022 and as of now

there is substantial progress in the investigation. Hence, he prayed for

grant of pre-arrest bail.

11. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition

by contending that, the petitioner is a habitual offender and there are

antecedents against the petitioner. It is also contended that the earlier

bail applications-Crl.P.Nos.6615, 6616 and 6619 of 2022, filed by the

petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail in the above Crimes, were

dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

Therefore, he contends that no indulgence can be shown by this Court

in the present cases. But, he can surrender and obtain a regular bail.

12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that

petitioner may be given liberty to surrender before the Court below

and move an application for bail and requested for a direction to the

Court below to consider the said application on the same day.

13. In the case on hand, there are antecedents against the

petitioner and it shows that petitioner is a habitual offender. Therefore,

there is force in the contention of the learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor that there is likelihood of the petitioner perpetuating the

similar offence, if he is extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

14. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the

contentions of the both learned counsel and material available on

record and keeping in view the antecedents of the accused and the

possibility of repeating similar or other offences while on bail and also

changed circumstances from the date of dismissal of the earlier

applications, if any, is concerned, they are not relevant, as this Court

feels that this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail. However, liberty

is given to the petitioner to surrender before the Court below and file

an application for bail and the Court below is directed to pass

appropriate orders on the said application, on its own merits, at the

earliest, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

15. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 31st October, 2022 GBS

Note: Issue CC tomorrow (B/O) GBS