ORDER : Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. - Since all three petitions stem from the same crime and involve overlapping facts and issues, they have been jointly heard and are being disposed of through this common order. 2. The Criminal Petition No.8519/2025 has been filed by Accused No.14 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail, whereas Criminal Petition Nos.8512 & 8484 of 2025 have been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of ‘the BNSS’ by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.13 & 11 for granting of regular bail in connection with Crime No.143 of 2025 of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(4), 316(2), 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘the PDPP Act’), Sections 4, 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for brevity ‘the MMDAR Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.07.2025 at 06:00 hours, near the Tirupati-Tiruttani Highway Road, in the vicinity of the Andhra-Tamil Nadu border, within the jurisdiction of Thadukupeta Panchayat, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, a coordinated operation was conducted by the Revenue and Police authorities based on credible information. Pursuant to which a detailed panchanama was prepared by K.Meghavarnam, Deputy Tahsildar, Nagari Mandal, wherein it is alleged that the accused persons, namely Bharath (A1), Devarajulu (A2), V.Jayakrishna (A3), S.Pandiyan (A4), A.Ajith Kumar (A5), M.Praveen Kumar (A6), A.S.Sreejith (A7), N.Anthony Ashok (A8), Senthil (A9), Bilal (A10), Amrutharaj Nadar @ TRS (A11), Proprietor of Vel & Co Stone Crushers (A12), and others, formed into an unlawful assembly and entered into a criminal conspiracy with the intent to commit theft of government property and to derive unlawful gain through illegal transportation of sand. - 4. The said accused persons had procured sand from the government authorised sand reach located at Besthapalli in Annamaiah District, Andhra Pradesh, and, in violation of the prescribed norms, misused the transportation permits issued for intra-state movement. With premeditated intent and full knowledge that cross-border transportation of sand constitutes theft and is prohibited under law, the accused concealed the sand beneath layers of stone crusher powder in tippers and attempted to transport the same to the State of Tamil Nadu. With premeditated intent and full knowledge that cross-border transportation of sand constitutes theft and is prohibited under law, the accused concealed the sand beneath layers of stone crusher powder in tippers and attempted to transport the same to the State of Tamil Nadu. During the said illegal operation, accused Nos.2 to 8 were apprehended at the scene by the joint team of Revenue and Police officials. A total of seven sand-laden tippers were seized, containing approximately 70 units of sand, with an estimated value of Rs.1,05,000/-. The remaining accused, including the proprietor of Vel & Co Stone Crushers, are alleged to have directly facilitated and abetted the commission of the offence. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 5. Dr. Sattaru Rajani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.13, submits that the allegations levelled against Petitioner are false, fabricated, and politically motivated. It is contended that his implication is solely due to political rivalry, and that the invocation of Section 111(2) (b) of ‘the BNS’, is based exclusively on the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.1, which is inadmissible in law and unsupported by any corroborative material. The Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal antecedents. He is an active political leader affiliated with the YSR Congress Party and was recently elected as Vice-President of Chittoor District and as Councilor for the 14 th Ward of Nagari Municipality. His wife is also an elected Councilor for the 25 th Ward. It is submitted that his political prominence has rendered him vulnerable to false implication at the behest of the local MLA belonging to a rival political party. It is further submitted that the offences alleged under Sections 303 (2) and 316(2) of ‘the BNS’ are punishable with imprisonment up to five years and do not attract the rigours of custodial interrogation pursuant to arrest. The addition of Sections 111(2)(b) and 317(4) of ‘the BNS’ is alleged to be a deliberate act by the Respondent/police to circumvent the statutory requirement of issuing notice under Section 35(b) of ‘the BNSS’, and to ensure the Petitioner’s incarceration. - 6. The Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and is blessed with two sons who are currently pursuing their education. He has never been involved in any criminal activity, and no cases are pending against him. - 6. The Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and is blessed with two sons who are currently pursuing their education. He has never been involved in any criminal activity, and no cases are pending against him. His continued detention based on unsubstantiated allegations has caused irreparable harm to his reputation and standing in the community. It is submitted that the material part of the investigation has been completed. Accused Nos.1 to 8 have already been arrested, and Accused No.10 has surrendered before the Nagari Police. Except for the alleged confession of Accused No.1, there is no incriminating material or seizure of contraband linking the petitioner to the offence. During the period of police custody, no material evidence was recovered from the petitioner, and he has no nexus with the contraband seized from Accused Nos.2 to 8. - 7. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Nagari Town, Chittoor District and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and he will not abscond or tamper with evidence and is willing to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court for his release on bail. The Petitioner is suffering from multiple health ailments, including hypertension, diabetes, chronic back pain, and a tumour on his back. His weight exceeds 120 kilograms, and he is unable to endure the physical conditions of judicial custody. His health has deteriorated significantly since his remand on 17.07.2025, and continued detention poses a serious threat to his life. 8. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had earlier filed Crl.M.P. No.171/2025 before the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, seeking bail. However, the said petition was dismissed on 04.08.2025 without due consideration of the above facts. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Petitioner was implicated only three days after registration of the FIR, and that his name did not surface in the confessional statements of Accused Nos.2 to 8, who were arrested in the initial phase of investigation and it is urged to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.13. - 9. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.11 submits that Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case solely based on the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.1, which is inadmissible in law and cannot be relied upon to sustain criminal charges against the Petitioner. - 9. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.11 submits that Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case solely based on the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.1, which is inadmissible in law and cannot be relied upon to sustain criminal charges against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that a perusal of the complaint and the mediators’ report reveals no specific allegation or overt act attributed to the Petitioner. There is no material to establish his participation in the alleged offence. The Petitioner has been suffering from serious health ailments for over a year and is physically disabled, having undergone amputation of his left leg. His medical condition warrants humanitarian consideration. 10. The Petitioner was arrested on 26.07.2025 and is presently lodged in judicial custody at Sub-Jail, Tirupati. He undertakes to furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction of this Court and assures full cooperation with the investigation and trial proceedings. It is submitted that there is no scope for tampering with evidence, and the Petitioner, being a permanent resident of Nagari, is readily available to the investigating agency. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail application vide Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2025 before the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati, which was dismissed on 04.08.2025. The present petition is filed bona fide and in the interest of justice and it is urged to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.11. 11. Sri V.Venkata Mayur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.14 that the Petitioner/Accused No.14 has been falsely implicated in the present case without any direct involvement or incriminating material. The alleged confessional statements made by Accused Nos.2 to 8 before the Deputy Tahsildar pertain solely to their own involvement and that of Accused No.1. No specific allegation has been made against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the investigation is complete, all material witnesses have been examined, and there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence. The Petitioner is willing to furnish sureties and abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. - 12. The proceedings are vitiated by mala fides and have been initiated with an oblique motive to harass the Petitioner. The FIR and accompanying statements are vague and fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the Petitioner. The police action is arbitrary and illegal. - 12. The proceedings are vitiated by mala fides and have been initiated with an oblique motive to harass the Petitioner. The FIR and accompanying statements are vague and fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the Petitioner. The police action is arbitrary and illegal. The Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with a non-bailable offence despite the absence of any substantive material. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s earlier anticipatory bail application before the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati vide Crl.M.P.No.172 of 2025 was dismissed on 04.08.2025. No other bail petition is pending before any court, including this Court and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.14. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 13. On the other hand, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail to Accused Nos.11 and 13 and pre-arrest bail to Accused No.14 stating that investigation is not completed; if the petitioners are enlarged either on regular bail or pre-arrest bail respectively, they would not be available for the investigation, and they will repeat the same offence. It is further argued that the investigation is still at nascent stage. Some more witnesses are to be examined and some more documents are yet to be collected. It is urged to dismiss the petitions. - 14. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 15. Now the points for consideration are: “1. Whether the Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13 are entitled for grant of bail? 2. Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.14 is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 16. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.14, and the material available on record, it is evident that although the confessional statements of Accused Nos.2 to 8 may not directly incriminate the Petitioner/Accused No.14, the circumstances surrounding the case warrant innate examination. The Petitioner/Accused No.14 is admittedly the registered owner of the lorries that were allegedly used in the commission of the offence and were lodged out to Accused No.1, who is a principal accused. Ownership of such vehicles carries with it a duty of supervise, accountability and answerability. The Petitioner/Accused No.14 is admittedly the registered owner of the lorries that were allegedly used in the commission of the offence and were lodged out to Accused No.1, who is a principal accused. Ownership of such vehicles carries with it a duty of supervise, accountability and answerability. The Petitioner/Accused No.14 cannot remain oblivious to the whereabouts and usage of his vehicles, especially when they are found to be involved in activities of a serious and unlawful nature. His failure to explain or monitor the purpose for which the lorries were deployed raises a presumption of conscious neglect or indirect involvement. The earlier dismissal of anticipatory bail by the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati further underpins the view that custodial questioning may be required to establish the scope of theAccused No.14/Petitioner’s knowledge and involvement. - 17. Indeed, grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license for commission of a offence nor a shield or protection for the persons who have allegedly committed offence, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi). 18. Considering these facts and circumstances and the gravity and nature of the allegations and the alleged role played, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.14. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.8519 of 2025 is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.14, liberty is granted to the Petitioner/Accused No.14 to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall make endeavor to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits, and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in two (02) days. - 20. Upon perusal of the record and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.13 and 11, this Court finds that their implication in the present offence is primarily based on the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.1. The statements of Accused Nos.2 to 8 do not refer to Accused No.13. No contraband or incriminating material has been recovered from either Petitioners. The statements of Accused Nos.2 to 8 do not refer to Accused No.13. No contraband or incriminating material has been recovered from either Petitioners. The offences alleged under Sections 303(2) and 316(2) of the ‘BNS.,’ though non-bailable, are punishable with imprisonment up to five years and do not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, warrant continued custodial detention. 21. It is further noted that Accused No.13 is a public representative with no prior criminal antecedents and is the sole breadwinner of his family. He suffers from multiple health ailments which render him medically vulnerable and unable to endure the rigours of incarceration. Accused No.13 was arrested on 17.07.2025 and he has been in judicial custody for the past 43 days. Similarly, Accused No.11 was arrested on 26.07.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 34 days. He is physically disabled, having undergone amputation of his left leg above the knee. His medical condition necessitates humanitarian considerations. Both Petitioners/Accused Nos. 11 & 13 are permanent residents of Nagari and have undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and trial proceedings. There is no material to suggest any likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. - 22. In view of the foregoing, and considering the absence of unswerving evidence, the medical susceptibility of the Petitioners, and their readiness to abide by conditions imposed by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant bail to Accused Nos.13 and 11. CONCLUSION: 23. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioners, their alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13 on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty- Five Thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari. ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13 shall not leave the limits of the State without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13 shall not leave the limits of the State without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. - iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. vii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.11 & 13 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 24. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition Nos.8512 & 8484 of 2025 are allowed and Criminal Petition No.8519 of 2025 is dismissed.