Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 602 (AP)

B. Babu Narapa Balaji v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-09-10

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. 2. The petitioner is A-3 in Crime No.51 of 2020 of Molakalacheruvu Police Station, Chittoor District. 3. The offences registered against him are under Sections 34(I) r/w 34(a), 11(2) and 42 of the A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 (for short "Excise Act"). 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.08.2020, A-1 and A-2 were found to be illegally transporting 240 tetra packets of Hayward cheers Whisky of 180 ml, 384 tetra packets of Hayward cheers whisky of 90 ml, 144 tetra packets of Heyward cheers whisky of 180 ml in a car bearing registration No. AP 02 A1 4880 and at that time, they were apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized from their possession. They are found to be transporting the said contraband from Karnataka to the State of Andhra Pradesh. On interrogation after the arrest, they disclosed that at the instance of the petitioner herein, who is A-3, they have been transporting the said contraband as he has offered Rs.2000/- to each of them for the purpose of transporting the said contraband. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is only on the basis of the alleged statement said to have been given by A-1 and A-2 that the petitioner is implicated in this crime. The petitioner is innocent and except the said statement of A-1 and A-2, there is no other material to prove the complicity of the petitioner in commission of the said offences and thereby prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that the statement of the accused, who are arrested in this case, clearly reveals that it is at the instance of the petitioner herein that the said contraband is being transported from Karnataka to the State of Andhra Pradesh, as he has paid Rs.2000/- to each of them for the said transport. Therefore, he would submit that the main person who is responsible for transportation of the said liquor bottles is the petitioner herein who is A-3. Therefore, he would submit that the main person who is responsible for transportation of the said liquor bottles is the petitioner herein who is A-3. Therefore, he would submit that he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 8. Perused the record. 9. No doubt, the persons who are found to be illegally transporting the said liquor bottles, as per record, are A-1 and A-2. However, it is relevant to note here that on interrogation by the police after the arrest, they revealed and disclosed that at the instance of the petitioner herein who is A-3, they have been transporting the said liquor bottles, as he has paid Rs.2000/- to each of them for the said transportation. Therefore, it is prima facie evident that it is the petitioner herein who is actually responsible for transportation of the said liquor bottles from Karnataka to Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, having regard to the said facts and as investigation in this case is at threshold, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.