Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1068 (AP)

Polavarapu Nookaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-09-22

Y.LAKSHMANA RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity "the BNSS") by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.354 of 2023 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2025 at about 4.30 P.M., on credible information, the Prohibition Excise Inspector along with staff and mediators reached outside of the house belongs to Polavarapu Nookaraju in Gangireddla Colony located at Pidimgoyyi Village of Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal and found 600 liters of FJ wash in 3 plastic drums. Then the police seized the FJ wash 500 ml for sample and destroyed remaining FJ wash in the presence of mediators. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that without approaching the learned Sessions Judge of first instance, the Petitioner filed this Petition directly before this Court, such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala , Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 6588 of 2025 dated 08.09.2025. It is further submitted that there are 17 adverse criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that there are 17 adverse criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. An application has been filed under Section 482 of "the BNSS" seeking for granting pre-arrest bail without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal C. supra wherein it was held as follows:- “7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wife distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case. 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre- arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/extra-ordinary circumstances.” 9. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of "the BNSS" such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner establish a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioner neither established special case nor extra-ordinary circumstance. CONCLUSION: 10. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned and move appropriate application for grant of pre- arrest bail. Any observations made in this Order would not hinder the learned Sessions Judge concerned to apply its mind independently and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law. The Investigating Officer is directed not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for a period of three (03) weeks from today, enabling the Petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned.