The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Arun Kumar Dodla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER l I i I I I I ,l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TT LANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SL JANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15652 of 20 t5 DATE:12.12.2o125 BETWEEN: Sri Sambari Sai Krishna and another .. petitioners / accuserr Vos I and 2 And The State of Telangana, ' Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. ....Respondent / :omplainant ORDER This Criminal Petition is hled under St., tion 4g2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 I (for short tsNSSJ for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitio. :rs, who are {- sr(s,J crl.P.No.l5652 of2o25 arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in POR.No.2561 l4l of FRO Udumpur, Mancherial District, rcgistered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(1)(c)(ii), (iii) and (x),29 and 44 of the Telangana State Foresl Act, 1967; Section 9 read with Section 2(16)(c) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 as amended rn 2022; Section 303(a)(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 58 and 60 of the TSF Act, 1967; Section 254 read with Section 2a9@l of the BNS, 2O23 read with Sections 58 and 60 of the TSF Act, 1967; Sections 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; and Section 3 read with Section 2(g) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Trafhc Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the night of

10.10.2025, a Bolero pickup vehicle carrying the driver (Al) was intercepted during routine patrolling in Kawal Reserve Forest, Rampur (E) Beat. Upon questioning, the driver allegedly confessed that he and another person had attempted to load felled teak trees on the instructions of one Vembadi Rajashekar and that teak trees had been illicitly 3 sKs,J Crl.P l ,.15652 of 2025 cut on 08.lO.2025 and 10. 10.2025. Based on 'his version, the officials registered the case and arrayed tl r peLitioncrs as accused Nos. 1 and 2.

3. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, lea rr ed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as weli a,; Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor ,r )pearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners subrni ted that rhe allegations were false, concocted, and made o I y to harass the petitioners without any evidence linking , hem to the alleged forest offences and that the petitioners lr Ld no role in ' the incident, that the offences invoked dicl not attract against them, and that their implication was L lsed merely on vague statements without any corroboratin6; naterial. He further submitted that the petitioners hacl ro criminal antecedents, apprehended illegal arrest al I custodial torture, and were ready to cooperate with the nvestigation and furnish sureties. Therefore, he prayed t te Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by a llowing this Criminal Petition. 4 SKS,J CrLP.No.15652 of2025 a-

5. On the ot-her hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serio.us in nature. Further, the investigation was not yet completed. At this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that though the counsel for the' petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the said 'allegations, there are previous cases regisLered against. them. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.1 was involved in similar cases earlier and accused No.2 was involved in two other criminal cases. Further, the investigation has not yet been completed. Considering the previous history of the petitioners and the nature of the allegations, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, and the Criminal Pelition is liable to be dismissed. 5 SKS,J Crl. P.I o.15652 of 2025

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disnr ssed Miscellaneous applications, if any pr r ding, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- ,.PONAM KRISHNA ASS;I JTANT REGISTRAR ( SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khanapur, Mancheri I District. 2. The FRO Udumpur, Mancherial District. 3. One CC to SRl. Alturi Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OpU(] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State r f Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD Copies PK/PR Ir-* HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025 :::: I IL- S t4 r() ( () (-) r 1 i JAN 2028 ORDER CRLP.No.15652 of 2025 * k a. /. ^ i ./;,' ln'rc'.i',":1r/ CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. ,;-\ ( t-,., !- .-L- .\'f ,. 1 ,'2 a:.