Criminal Petition No. 5221 of 2022 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2 seeking to grant pre-arrest bail in Crime No.493 of 2022 of Special Enforcement Bureau, Rajamahendravaram South Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7-B read with 8(A) and 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on

24.04.2022, on reliable information, the Enforcement Sub Inspector, Rajamahendravaram South Police Station, along with staff conducted raid and caught one person, who is preparing ID liquor in three pots methods and seized 35 liters of liquor in one plastic can, three iron drums containing 600 liters of FJ Wash. Hence, the above crime was registered.

Heard Sri Innamuri Balasubrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, contended that investigation is almost completed and the petitioner is being called to police station daily under suspicion and making him to sit in the station from morning to evening and he was induced as accused person in the crime basing on the statement of the 2 mediators at the time of offence. He further submits that the petitioner has not committed any crime and prayed this court to grant anticipatory bail stating that the petitioner will definitely cooperate with the investigation and he will abide any conditions imposed by this court.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Harjit Singh Vs. Inderpreet Singh @ Inder and another [Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2021] and draw the attention of this Court to para 7.5, wherein it is stated as follows: “9. ….It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No.272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent the High Court exercise discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factor to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the fofence; (ii) Nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) Character, beahviour, means, position and standing of the accused; 3 (vi) Likelihood of the offence beidng repeated; (vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses beding influence; and (viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in granting bail. The antecedents shows that he is a habitual offender. The above said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

On the other hand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that petitoner does not deserve for indulgence of this court for granting anticipatory bail as he has previous crijinal history and placed instructions on record sshowing that the petitoenr involved in 14 crimes i.e., Crime Nos. 243/2022, 154/2022, 50/2022, 1789/2021, 1772/2021, 1278/2021, 684/2021, 619/2021, 168/2021, 62/2021, 744/2020, 401/2020, Rahamahendravaram South and he is habitual offender and there is every likelihood of petitioner may tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses in the event if the petitioner is granted bail and seeks dismissal of the application.