Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 355 (AP)

M. Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-06-25

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2021
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking prearrest bail to the petitioner/A-1 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.98 of 2021 of Excise Station Macherla, Narsaraopeta Excise District, Guntur District, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 34(A) and 50-B(1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. 2. The case of the prosecution is that 13.06.2021 on credible information by the excise officials, they secured the mediators at Adigoppala village and proceeded to scene of offence, where they found A-3 to A-6, who were shifting liquor cartons from a car and on verification, the police found total 1680 nip bottles of various brands. On enquiry, A-3 confessed that he purchased the said liquor from A-1 and A-2 and selling to A-5 at higher prices and while they were shifting the liquor in Tata Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP21 BF 7831. Then the excise police arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of mediators report. Basing on the same, the present crime was registered. 3. Heard Sri Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been seized from the petitioner and he is not connected with the alleged offence. He submits that the neither the seized vehicle nor the rice mill belongs to the petitioner, in fact A-2 owns the same. He submits that due to village politics, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner has no criminal history and his case may be considered for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that A-1 and A-2 are jointly doing business and enjoying the sale proceeds and the other accused have surrendered before the concerned Court, as such the petitioner is not entitled for prearrest bail. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that other accused have surrendered before the concerned Court, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner/A-1 to surrender before the concerned Court and on such surrender, the bail application filed by him shall be considered on the same day in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that other accused have surrendered before the concerned Court, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner/A-1 to surrender before the concerned Court and on such surrender, the bail application filed by him shall be considered on the same day in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.