Telangana State v. Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi

Counsel forthe Petitioner : Sri Kale Vijaya Raju Counsel for the Respondent : Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following ORDER: iiiEii --_______ APHCO10117622025 HEiELE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CLRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2770/20_iE Betwee n : Dara Boina Prasad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. KALE VIJAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER:

1. The Criminal Petition, under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/A10 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with crime No.12 of 2025 at the Prohibition and Excise Station, Koduru, Annamayya District.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 7 r/w 8(b)(ii) of the A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

3. The ProsecutionJs case, in brief, is that on 29.01.2025, at approximately 3:00 PM, the Excise officials raided the residence of Marri Ayyappa at =E= ERE E=IEE D No w AnantharaJuPeta vI'lage, Kodur Manda' Dunng the rald, they av,r±:dBr±;n:;V::=): ::1bo&ttli:;:::::eu::e::,le;::_nldF boo:1:Iensg otfheolrdalkd:I::I 2 y>:^mo a:: aB r= ;gd : u(s18ROa: I )i R;Os cbooo`ttt:fie:ancaeNISneeb;=D=y±^1 :n: a:coe;i I =a :: yo ;: 8:Lmri) \',r`aa yamaha cygnus Ray zR scooter (Beg NoAPO4 BL 3470), a Hero pass,on pro motorcycle (Beg NoAPO4 BH 3422), and moblle phones from both accused Later, at approx,mately 5 00 PM, another rald was conducted at Ayyappa's house ln Lakshm, Nagar, Kodur town, where 430 bottles of :h::dp i_2a : as uVpSp=e:sBE3n :yn a( ;A84O,:rI!`s:dgee:n=:sseK:a::I:rr. I:OO_I*.I n:hceor:fe4s3s:a nbsof£::m: :1 and A2, suppliers A3 and A4, resldents of TIrupath, town, were lmpI,cated fn the JIIega' /,quor trade Based on the Invest,gal,on, a case ln above crlme was reg,'stered and l'nvestl'gated into. i: : :Gstr:e: fTO: eAkFS : aRy Ca :epgs: s: =:n:t`;:hcut:::p:=S+u:.bn^::::: _ptph::: sthbeot:eel:i:opnsetr: hvoalr::nut-s ::^el =._Lp:: rnf_oerdACkOsuhnasye:faoprs:h= apneutfI:IcOtnu::ssaunbHm :i:. ::,a_t _tTe petltIOne r , hold I ng lndustrleS The F I R alleges that the petftloner's firm supp',ed caps to " RN.a:unnk==a=eaonfaA(€ s3 : nftoer:i-::pn::r\l UOT:h:: :::rurmOer;:t:Onrn:;dr:_sct\fi:rn: tshuopupgl :e dthcea ppset:::fe: r was unaware ofA 3's ,ntentlons The firm ls not respons,ble for the mlsuse by the buyer on o1-03-2025, POJ,ce from SEB Koduru v,slted the petltIOnerJs premISes regard,ng the case, though the petltloner's name ,s not ln the F I R Trhe:a npge=I:laO,nae: dfawcI:ISc= :hprley:: I:h; va:::y:\sc::\ube:: i:ta;a:na^e:s= pnI : :ge ::t\nzOetn I,nr:hs:a lFn : =n :elang^a:a, and WIH comply -;lt-; =:ye®c`o:rutl_I=pao:ae:caob:a::t\gonC:1 5. o"he other hand, the learned Asslstant pubIJC Prosecutor, appearJng for the Respondenvstate, opposes the grant of ant,cJPatory ball on the ground that the jnvestl'gatl-on I-s st" pendl'ng.

6. I have heard both sldes Learned counsel on both sloes re,terated thelr subm,sslons on par w,th the content,ons presented ln the PetltJOn as we" as ln the Report consequently, the contentlons presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. EE=EE-E

7. ln Mah,-pa/ V. Ra/-esh7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary ., for the court, while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, there existed a pr/-ma fac,'e or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the Crime. It is settled law that when granting bail, a detailed exa documentation of the case's me mean that whilst granting bail, s bail was being granted did not I a HEEEE O_^\u.= ®|- E= OI.9 has not to be undertaken. That did not evidence and elaborate reasons for prima facI-e concluding Why o be indicated

8. It is settled law that While C idering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest iS made. In the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. The court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. lt is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused iS imperative based On the facts and circumstances of that case.

9. To substantiate the COntentiOn that the Petitioner is the General Power of Attorney holder (GPA) for Akshya Caps, the Petitioner has submitted a copy of the GPA. Additionally, the Petitioner has presented material before the court to demonstrate that his wife executed a Power of Attorney for the management of Akshya Caps, which was registered under Registration No.36CQUPD5826RIZV, dated 22.03.2021. The Petitioner further asserts that in January 2025, A.3 contacted him via telephone, stating that he was selling hand Washes and SanitiZerS tO local.retail Shops and doctors. A.3 then placed an order for 12,200 caps at a total cost of Rs.10,797/-. To support this claim, the petitioner has provided a copy of the invoice, which reflects the transaction as alleged. Moreover, the Petitioner contends that their firm 1 (2020) 2 SCC 118 Q*-__ supplied caps to Mr. R. Venkata Ramana (A.3). However, it appears that A.3 misused the caps in the prodri-ction of spurious liquor. The Petitioner maintains that, as the seller of the caps, they cannot be held responsible for any misuse of the caps by A.3.

10. The learned counsel for the petiti'oner asserts that on o1.03.2025, a police constable from the Special Enforcement Bureau Station visited the Petitioner's firm. The constable requested the presence of the petitioner and informed him that the Petitioner had supplied the caps to the accused for the Purpose Of manufacturing SPuriOuS liquor. ll. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that, in accordance wl®th an order placed by A.3, their firm duly supplied caps to A.3. However, it is important to note that the mere act of supplying the caps does not, in itself, imply that the PetI'tiOner Should be held liable for any potential illegal use of those caps by other accused individuals. The material placed does not suggest that the Petitl'oner had any knowledge or reason to believe that the supplied product would be misused for unlawful activities.

12. Where the supply of goods is involved, it is essential to establish mens res, or the intention or knowledge of wrongful conduct, in order to determine the seller's liabilI'ty. Without the requisite mens tea, meaning that the petitioner did not have any criminal intent or awareness of how the product would be utilized, the Petitioner cannot be held responsible for the subsequent illegal actions of the buyer or any other parties inJolved.

13. It is important to note that the prosecution has not put forward the argument that the Petitioner firm lacks the requisite authorization to sell caps, nor has it been suggested that the firm does not possess the necessary licences to conduct such a business. On the contrary, the material available at this stage indicates that, upon receiving orders for caps, the petitioner firm duly supplied the caps as per the order. ` `

14. There is no material to-suggest that the Petitioner firm deviated from I, any established procedure or legal requirement while carrying out the sale of these caps. Moreover, it is unreasonable to expect that the Petitioner should have foreseen or been aware that the caps purchased by A.3 would be used for any illegal purpose. The mere act of selling caps, a product that by nature is not inherently associated with illegal activities, does not, in and of itself, raise suspicion or imply criminal intent on the part of the petitioner.

15. This Court finds force in the Petitioner's counsel submissions that liability cannot be imposed solely on the supply of goods unless there is clear material showing the Petitioner was aware, or should have been aware, of the buyer's intent to engage in illegal activities. In the absence of such material, the Petitioner cannot be held accountable for the unlawful use of the Caps. The sale of caps to A.3 does not imply awareness of or involvement in any illegal actions, and there is no prima facie material Suggesting the Petitioner had the intent (met,s rea) to commit the offence.

16. `At this stage, the allegations against the Petitioner are subjected to the trial's outcome. lt is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation.

17. lt is also a well-accepted Principle that bail iS the rule and thejail iS the exception. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.`Ch,-dambaram V. a,'recforafe of Er,forcemenf2, considering all the earlier judgments, observed that the basic jur'lsprudence relating to bail remains the same in as much as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

18. It is not the Prosecution's Case that the Petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation, and he is not available for interrogation. There is no 2 (2019)9SCC66 r= `-` <-.. fu=--,Bdi indication of a likell'hood tha.t the petitioner would abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court. The Petitioner Flas expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The likelihood of levying accusations with the intention of harming or embarrassing the Petl'tl'oner through potentl'al arrest is not improbable.

19. Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, thl-s Court views that even if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the prosecution that he will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the petitioner has Permanent abode. The facts do not warrant custodl-al l'nterrogation of the Petitioner in the nature of the accusations. Granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner would not impede the ongol-ng investl®gatl'on. Therefore, if the Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to appropriate conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and meet the ends of justice. 2O. Upon careful review of the available material, as there is no risk of interference with the ongoing investigation by the petitioner, this court finds that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under certain conditl-ons: i) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the prohibition and Excise Station, Railway Kodur, Annamayya District, within two (2) weeks from today. on such surrender, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. ii) The Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, and he shall not, dl-rectly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person \._ / _,ar- .-.-- ` acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. +

21. lt is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this order are Preliminary and Pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this Order.

22. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are a//owed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal petition, shall stand closed. . To, //TRUE COPY// sd/-P.U-V. BHASKAR RAG ASSISTA`NT sEC"ON OFFICER

1. The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Railway Kodur, Station, Annamayya District.

2. One CC to Sri Kale Vijaya Raju, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Courtof Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

4. One spare copy CVSS Jr, HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED : 24/03/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.2770 of 2025 ALLOWED •,i i /i a 1& NIhR \ife\ -:i----i=:-a_i I -I---,--:-:--