Meesala Narayana Murthy alias Mani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

MEESALA NARAYANA MURTHY ALIAS MANI, , S/O SURANNA, AGED ABOUT 60YEARS, OCC FRUIT BUSINESS,R/O D.NO. 10-7086, KONASTREET,KANAKALAPETA, YANAM, PUDUCHERRY - 533464.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District., Through StationHouse Officer, Nakkapalli Police Station, Anakapalli District.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶17

1.K.V.AKHILESWARA REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶19

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER :

¶21

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya

¶22

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the

¶23

2

¶24

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5231 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026

¶25

Petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.299 of 2022 of Nakkapalli Police Station, Anakapalli District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity, ‘the APE Act’).

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that the offence occurred on 27.12.2022 at about 07:00 hours at Vempadu Toll Plaza, Nakkapalli Mandal, and was reported on the same day. On receiving credible information, the complainant, Sri N. Satyanarayana, ASI No.1231 of Nakkapalli Police Station, along with police staff and mediators, conducted vehicle checking at the toll plaza. On noticing the police party, the driver of a red Chevrolet Beat car bearing Registration No. AP35 Q 8223 stopped the vehicle at some distance and attempted to flee, leaving the vehicle behind. He was chased and apprehended by the police. During interrogation, he disclosed his identity as Karri Trinadh (Accused No.1) and admitted that he was transporting illicit liquor purchased from Meesala Narayana Murthy alias Mani (Accused No.2) of Yanam, Puducherry, for illegal sale in and around Tallapalem area at a higher price. The police seized 1,252 bottles of various Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) brands, valued at about Rs.1,06,080/-, along with the Chevrolet Beat car under the cover of a mediators' report. Accused No.1 was arrested at the spot, while Accused No.2 is yet to be apprehended.

¶28

3

¶29

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5231 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026

¶30

Mr. K.V. Akhileswara Reddy, learned Counsel for the

¶31

Petitioner/Accused No.2 submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated and that no contraband was recovered from his possession. His implication is based solely on the alleged confession of Accused No.1, which has no evidentiary value. It is further submitted that Accused No.1 has already been granted regular bail and that, despite the offence being of the year 2022, the Petitioner was never arrested and the investigation is still pending. The Petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of Yanam, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the petitioner is aged about 60 years and is eking out his livelihood by carrying on a fruit vending business. It is contended that nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner and that his

¶32

alleged involvement in the crime has surfaced solely on the basis of the confession made by Accused No.1. Therefore, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶33

Per contra , Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the prosecution

¶34

4

¶35

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5231 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026

¶36

alleges that the petitioner supplied 1,252 bottles of liquor to Accused No.1. It is contended that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the source from which he procured the said liquor and to facilitate a fair and effective investigation.

¶37

It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed.

¶38

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 8. 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:

¶39

“Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”

¶40

As seen from the record, the Investigating Officer conducted a raid on 27.12.2022 and prepared a mediators' report, pursuant to which Crime No.299 of 2022 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of ‘the APE Act’. During the raid, 1,252 bottles of illicit liquor were seized from the possession of Accused No.1. In the interrogation, Accused No.1 allegedly disclosed that he had purchased the seized liquor from the Petitioner/Accused No.2. Admittedly, nothing was recovered from the possession of the Petitioner, and no adverse antecedents are reported against him. However, the

¶41

5

¶42

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5231 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026

¶43

prosecution specifically alleges that the Petitioner supplied the seized liquor to Accused No.1. The Petitioner is a resident of Yanam, Union Territory of Puducherry, where excise duties on liquor are comparatively lower, and the source from which the Petitioner procured the 1,252 bottles of liquor is yet to be ascertained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner appears necessary for an effective investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶44