Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 728 (AP)

Tambhi Venkateswaralu v. State represented by SHO

2021-11-02

D.RAMESH

body2021
ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.113/2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau, Ongole, Prakasam District, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 34(a) of A.P.Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. 2. It is submitted in the F.I.R that on 22.11.2020 on receipt of credible information by the Inspector of SEB, SEB Station, Oneole, the S.I of SEB, SEB Station, Ongole along with his staff conducted raids at Kothapatnam village limits and at about 4pm found the accused in possession of white colour plastic bag holding with his right hand and on seeing the police the accused left the bag and ran away. When observed the bag, it contain 20 bottles of two various brands of liquor each 180ml capacity and escaped from the offence place, tried to detain the accused and mediators, but in vain. Then drawn two bottles one from each brand as sample for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed and seized the remaining under cover of special report drafted on the spot. Hence the F.I.R. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused is unnecessarily being dragged into the aforesaid crime, only at the behest of his political and business rivals and the ingredients of the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act does not satisfy the ingredients in the instant case. There is no iota of evidence with regard to the purchasing of liquor bottles by the petitioner. This case is foisted only to reach targets fixed by higher officials and that the petitioner is not at all present at the scene of offence. Hence, his case may be considered for grant of pre-arrest bail. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that SEB staff along with Inspector and Sub-Inspector, when conducting raids, found the petitioner with illegal possession of liquor of 20 bottles of 180ml each and this itself is enough for not granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 6. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of white colour plastic bag containing 20 bottles of liquor of 180ml. quantity each. 6. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of white colour plastic bag containing 20 bottles of liquor of 180ml. quantity each. But to prove the same, no mediator was examined by the police and not recorded any statement by the SEB staff. Except stating that they searched for mediators, but in vain, the SEB officials have not produced any evidence either oral or documentary to show that the petitioner is in possession of contraband, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.113/2020 of SEB, Ongole, Prakasam District, on his executing self bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, SEB, Ongole, Prakasam District. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.