[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Muthyala Venkatesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 August, 2025
=i=
lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
` TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTY FIVE
:-PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y| LAKSHMANA RAb ngapap,~``¢5''J
. .-.\*
~® *_-,-i-Tat,#i1
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7839 OF 2025
Betwee n :
Muthyala Venkatesh, s/o. Armugam, Aged 53 years, Occ Driver, R/o. D.No.
14-91, Sri Seshachala Nagar, Karakambadi Road, Tirupati, Tirupati District.
i
||.Petitioner/Accused No|1
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its public prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati. -
...Respondent/ComplaI-nanE
petition under sections `480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the
cI’rCumStanCeS Stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the
Criminal Petl’tion, the High Court may be pleased to release the
Petitioner/accused nO. 1 on bai`I, pending investigation, inquiry and trial in
Crime No.152/2025 of Obulavaripalli Police StatI’On, Annamayya District.
The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the
memorandum of grounds – filed in support thereof and upon hearing the
arguments of SRI D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Advocate for the petitioner,I: /(
. and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the court made the
following
I:– ‘—
Dr_YLR, J
CrI.P.No.7839 2025
JO
Date: ll.08.2025
The Court made the following ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439
of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for brevity lthe Cr.P.C.I)/
Sections 480 arld 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(for brevity [the BNSSI), seeking `to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No|1
on bail in crime No.152 of 2025 of Obulavaripalli Police Station,
Annamayya District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1
herein for the offences punishable under Sections 303 (2),132,109(1),
61(1 ), 49 read with 190 of the Bharat-lya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity
tthe BNS’), 49, 61 (2) of [the BNS’ and Sections 20 (I) (d)(I)(a) (b) read
with 20 (I)(c), ii, iii, iv, ix, 36 (a) read with 32-A, of the Andhra Pradesh
Forest Act, 2016, Rules 3 and 4 of AP Sandalwood and Red Sanders
Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 (for brevity [{he PDPP Act‘).
2. The case of the prosecution -ls that, on rece’lpt of credible
information about the illegal transportation of Red Sander logs, the Sub-
lnspector of Police Obulavaripalli Police Station, he along with his staff
and mediators rushed to the scene of offence i.e. near Cheruvu AIugu, Y I
Kota Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal and found some persons while they
were trying to load red sander logs in the car. During the c,peration, the
police apprehended seven persons. Up I- :nenf=r:lion, the police seized 4
Dr.YLR, i
Crl.P.No.`/839 202S
Date: ll..98.2O25
-q
red sander logs along with instruments used to cut the logs from the
scene of offence. The police arrested the accused and registered an
FIR.
3. Mr.D.Purna Chandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has
been falsely implicated by the police. lt I’S further Submitted that the
petitioner js the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his
continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents.
The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner/Accused No.1
had not even transported the red sander logs and that, even accepting
the prosecutionJs version in Toto, the alleged offence was not completed
insofar as the petitioner/Accused No.1 is concerned. The petitioner
undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by
this Court. In light of the foregoing, learned counsel prays that the
present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
4. Per cot,ira, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner,
submitting that the investigation is still at progressive stage and several
material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the
petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood
that he may abscond, thereby hamperin.a +h- ~lgoing investigation and
Dr.YLR, J
+<
CrI.P.No.7839 2025
Date: ll_08.2O25 t>
evading the process of law. lt is reported that there are no adverse
antecedents against the petitioner. As the alleged offence iS Punishable
with imprisonment of upto ten years, and the petitioners have been in
judicial custody for the past 48 days, his request may not be cons-ldered
at this juncture, and it is urged to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the ‘record.
6. On perusal of the record, the petitioner was indulged in
transportation of 4 logs of red sander, weighing about 56 Kgs along with
other accused. The allegation of the prosecution is that Accused No.2
was engaged by Accused No.7. The petitioner/Accused No.1 procured
coolies. The Accused Nos.9 & 10 engaged the petitioner/Accused No.1
for transportation of 4 logs of red sanders. Learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor submits that there are no adverse antecedents against the
petitioner/Accused No.1. The petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested on
24.06.2025 and he has been in the judicial custody for the past 48 days,
The petitioner has got fixed abodes and he is permanent resident Of Sri
Seshachala Nagar, Karakambadi Road, Tirupati.
7. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled
against the petitioner/Accused No.1, his alleged role played in this case,
and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner in judic’Ia!
I+a Dr.YLR, I
Crl.P.No.7839 202S
Date: ll.08.2025
custody for the past 48 days, the request of petitioner/Accused No.1 is
found convincing and reasonable, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
peti{I®Oner/Accused No.1 on bail.
8. In the result, the Criminal PetI’tiOn iS allowed with the following
conditions.-
i. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail
subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only), wI’th two Sureties
each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First class for Trail of Cases relating
to Red Sander SmugglI’ng, Tirupati.
ii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the
Station House Offl-cer concerned, on every saturday in
between 10:00 am and 05.loo pm, till cognizance is taken by
the learned the Trial Court.
iii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of
the District without prior permission from the station House
OffI’Cer concerned.
iv. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or
indulge in commission of any cfence in future.
Dr_YLR, I
Crl.P.No.7839 2025
Dclte: ll.08.2025
v. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the
investigating officer in further l’nvestigation of the case and
shall make theinselves available for interrogation by the
investigating officer’as and when required.
vi. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts .of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or
to any police officer.
SD/-N.NAGAMMA
ASSISTANT Rgg!JiTRAR
!,`i,-‘`’. .I //TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases relating tO Red
Sanders Smuggling, Tirupati.
2. The Superintendent, Sub J’ail, Tirupat’I.
3. The Station House `Officer, Obulavaripalli Police Station, Annamayya
District
4. One CC to SRl. D ‘PURNACHANDRA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
[OUT]
6. One spare copy
PsR
i-
HIGH COURT
DR.YLR,J
DATED:ll/08/2025
BAIL ORDER
CRLP.No.7839 of 2025
ALLOWED
[ad_2]
Source link