Nakka Satyanarayana vs. The State

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3975 OF 2020

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioner/A.2 on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.160/2020, on the file of Tallapudi Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(c) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act').

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 21.07.2020 at 7.15 PM, the Tallapudi Police along with two mediators visited the scene of offence and found the 1st accused outside the house bearing D.No.1-27, Ambedkar Street, Ballipadu Village of Tallapudi Mandal while selling ID arrack and earning money and he brought the arrack from the petitioner/A-2 herein. On interrogation, the 1st accused disclosed that he procured the ID arrack from A-2/petitioner herein. Then, the Tallapudi police apprehended A-1 and seized 10 liters of ID arrack worth Rs.5,0000/-, as such, the petitioner/A-2 is apprehending his arrest in the above crime which is a non-bailable offence.

3. The main contention of the petitioner is that he did not commit any offence and nothing was recovered from his possession and therefore, implicating him in such grave offence is illegal and requested to issue a direction to the Station House Officer in the event of his arrest in the above crime for the alleged offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(c) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao reiterated the contention while making specific submission that

nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner till date and implicated him as A-2 basing on the confession of the 1st accused and caused serious prejudice to the liberty of the petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with the above crime.

5. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State contended that the petitioner is the king pin and he is the person who is supplying ID arrack to various persons in the village and that there is possibility of interfering with the investigation in the event of enlarging the petitioner on pre arrest bail, who is successfully avoiding his arrest till now.

6. As seen from the material on record, the petitioner was not found physically at the time of arrest of the 1st accused in the above crime which is registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(c) of the Act. But he is the person who is supplying ID arrack as per the allegations made in the mediators report as disclosed by the 1st accused. But, as on today though the crime was registered long ago, the petitioner was successfully avoiding his arrest and the investigation is not yet completed. Therefore, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on pre arrest bail at this stage as there is possibility to interfere with the investigation in the event of enlarging the petitioner on pre arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

_________________________________________

Date: 28.09.2020 KA

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3975 OF 2020

Date: 28.09.2020

KA