Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/8534/2026 of Nargani Srinu Alias Bangaru Srinu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8534/2026 Between: 1. NARGANI SRINU ALIAS BANGARU SRINU, S/O BANGARAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS.AGRICULTURE COOLIE,
APHC010506122026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8534/2026
Between:
1. NARGANI SRINU ALIAS BANGARU SRINU, S/O BANGARAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS.AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O D. NO. 7-80, RAGHUNADHA PURAM,VINAYAKA TEMPLE, RAJANAGARAM, 0PP.
GSL HOSPITAL,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhrapradesh ,Station House Officer, Proh Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram -North,East Godavari District.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. SAMBHU PRASAD PEDIREDDI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.174 of 2026 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram
North, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7-B read with 8-B of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Mr. Sambhu Prasad Pedireddi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is a supervisor or follower of the opposition political party. The Petitioner was falsely implicated in this case with an intention to pin him down in the ensuing elections. The material so far collected against the Petitioner is only a confession, which is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of East Godavari District. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting pre-arrest bail. Hence, it is urged that the Criminal Petition be allowed.
4. Mr. A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of any relief, much less pre-arrest bail, to the Petitioner and submitted that there are three more similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a habitual offender. The investigation is still at a progressive stage. The accusations against the Petitioner are well- founded. Hence, it is urged that the Criminal Petition be dismissed.
5. On perusal of the record, the role of the Petitioner came to light based on the confession of the co-accused. It is alleged that the Petitioner had indulged in the illegal possession of 6 litres of ID liquor. There are three similar adverse antecedents against the Petitioner in Crime Nos.102, 107 and 248 of 2025. The investigation is at a progressive stage.
6. The grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2 . The remedy of pre‑arrest bail, being an extraordinary and discretionary relief, cannot be granted to the Petitioner against whom the accusation is well-founded. Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.3 at this juncture does not appear to be convincing or reasonable. There are no merits in the petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 01.10.2026 PRA
1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8534 of 2026
Date: 01.10.2026
PRA