JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest. 2. The petitioners are A-2 and A-3 in Crime No.457 of 2020 of Gorantla Police Station, Ananthapuramu District. 3. The offences registered against them are under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act and under Sections 8(b)(i)(ii) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955. 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 23.08.2020, on credible information received by the Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station, regarding illegal transportation of Karnataka State liquor into the state of Andhra Pradesh, he along with his staff reached the compound P & R Development Company, near Budili Cross and at that time, they found some persons standing at the scene of offence and chatting with each other by the side of their motorcycles with some bags. They tried to skulk away after seeing police. Immediately, police surrounded them and arrested A-1 and A-4 to A-10 and seized five motorcycles and seven bags from their possession which contained 288 old tavern Whisky 180 ml tetra packets, 192 8pm rare blend of Indian Whisky malts 180 ml tetra packets, 1344 Hayward Cheers Whisky 90 ml extra packets from their possession. On interrogation after their arrest, they disclosed that the petitioners herein have supplied the said contraband to them for transportation. Therefore, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences along with other accused. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were not arrested at the scene of offence, no contraband was seized from their possession and they were involved in this case only on the basis of alleged statements of the accused who are arrested in this case. So, he would submit that the petitioners are innocent and thereby prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that the petitioners herein are habituated in committing the offences of like nature and earlier another case of similar nature was registered against them. So, he would submit that the petitioners are innocent and thereby prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that the petitioners herein are habituated in committing the offences of like nature and earlier another case of similar nature was registered against them. He would submit that facts of the case show that these petitioners are the main accused and they supplied the said contraband to the accused who are arrested in this case and as such, the petitioners herein are not entitled to anticipatory bail and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. The facts of the case show that A-1 and A-4 to A-10 were found to be illegally transporting the aforesaid contraband from Karnataka to the State of Andhra Pradesh and at that time, they were apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized from their possession. Their statement, given after their arrest, reveals that the petitioners herein are the main accused who have supplied the contraband to them for transportation from the State of Karnataka to Andhra Pradesh. Further, as per the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioners are also involved earlier in a similar case which is pending against them and that they are habituated in committing the offences of like nature. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.