Dismissed

Bhimana Pothuraju alias Patiyya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026CRLP/7735/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 482 BNSS regarding possession of prohibited liquor. Court refused bail due to undisclosed adverse antecedents, nature of allegations, and pending investigation, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is dismissed; no pre-arrest bail is granted. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Bhimana Pothuraju alias Patiyya Vs The State of… — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010463232026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7735/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

BHIMANA POTHURAJU ALIAS PATIYYA, S/O BHAGAYYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,R/O SATILITECITY VILLAGE,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDALAM,ET GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

B PARAMESEWARA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

¶20

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7735 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.237 of 2026 of Rajamahendravaram South Prohibition and Excise Station, East Godavari District, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 7-B read with 8-B of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. 2. Sri B.Parameswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the innocent of the alleged offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.

¶24

Per contra , Mr.A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. There are three adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

¶25

¶26

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7735 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶28

As seen from the record, the case was registered against the petitioner/Accused on the allegation that he was involved in the possession of 300 litres of F.J.Wash. The petitioner is a permanent resident of East Godavari District and has got fixed abode. There are three adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. The petitioner has not disclosed the said details in the present petition.

¶29

In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,¹ wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication.

¶30

In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the petitioner against

¶31

12026 SCC Online 188

¶32

¶33

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7735 of 2026 Dated 15.09.2026

¶34

whom specific allegations have been made, as per the judgments of the

¶35

Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab² and

¶36

Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)³ .

¶37

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38