Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Manoj Kumar Mutta vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 December, 2025
APHC010634442025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12215/2025
Between:
Manoj Kumar Mutta ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. N ASHWANI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 by the Petitioner/Accused No.20 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.171 of 2025 of Bhavanipuram Prohibition and ExcisePolice Station, NTR District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 34(a) read with 34(1)(i), 34(1)(ii) and 34(e) read with 50B(b), 34(f) read with 34(2) and 34(h) read with 34(2) and 1 the BNSS 2 34(h) read with 34(2) and 36(1)(b&c) read with 36(1)(i) and 37(b) read with 37(i) and 50 read with 50B(b) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,19682.
2. Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is aged about 52 years and is suffering from severe health ailments. He is the sole breadwinner of the family and has not committed any offence. He was falsely implicated in this case and that he is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may impose for granting bail. The petitioner is a trader dealing in plastic caps and bottles. It is further submitted that he was falsely implicated based solely on an inadmissible confession.
3. It is further submitted that a notice under Section 35(3) of 'the BNSS.,' was issued on 03.11.2025, and the petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.Bail No.2277 of 2025 before the learned Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, but the petition was returned with an objection that the name of the petitioner did not tally with the memo filed by the police in Crime No.171 of 2025, and it was therefore returned for compliance by 27.11.2025. It is further argued that certain police constables approached the petitioner, behaved in a high-handed manner, and assaulted him. The petitioner was taken to Ramesh Hospital on 03.11.2025, where the patient assessment report was prepared containing an endorsement that the petitioner was apparently assaulted on his face by another person during an enquiry. It was also endorsed that, as a result of the assault, he remained unresponsive and confused, with a fixed stare, for about five minutes. However, there was no loss of consciousness or limb jerk. Certain medical 2 AP Excise Act 3 records have been filed to show that the petitioner's health condition is not good condition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Ulli Bhasker v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 for the proposition that mere possession of the articles does not constitute an offence unless it is established that such possession was connected with the manufacture of illicit liquor, and urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
5. Per contra, Sri M. Lakshminarayana, learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently argued that the main accused has given a confession implicating the petitioner, and the said confession is corroborated by the prosecution witnesses in material particulars. It is contended that the petitioner knowingly prepared plastic bottles, caps and government logos and labels intended to affix on the bottles and caps, for the purpose of filling spurious illicit liquor, thereby actively aided the main accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner has several similar adverse antecedents. The investigation is still at a progressive stage; some more witnesses are yet to be examined and certain accused are still to be apprehended. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, and it is urged that the bail application be dismissed.
6. As seen from the record, the petitioner is running a shop in the name and style of 'Sha Misrimal Hirachand Empty Glass Bottles Wholesale,' dealing in all varieties of caps and plastic bottles. A notice under Section 35(3) of 'the BNSS.,' was issued by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Bhavanipuram, and the same was received by the petitioner. In that 3 2004 (2) A.P.L.J 17 (HC) 4 notice, the petitioner was shown as a suspect for the offences punishable under Sections 13(e), 13(f), 34(a), 34(c), and 34(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.
7. Indeed, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.Bail No.2277 of 2025, but the said petition was returned on 20.11.2025 with an objection that the name of the petitioner did not tally with the memo filed by the police in Crime No.171 of 2025. It was further directed that the objection be complied with by 27.11.2025. It is not clear whether the petitioner has complied with the said objection, no petition is pending before the learned Court below.
8. In Ulli Bhasker supra, a judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, a leaned single Judge of this Court at para No.3 held as under:
"3... As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, possession of either black jaggery and/or Alum, per se, is not an offence under the Prohibition Act or the Excise Act, because neither of them, as such, are intoxicants, as defined by the Excise Act. As per Sec. 34(e) of the Excise Act, using, keeping or being in possession of any materials, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever, 15 20 done, for the purpose of manufacturing any 25 even wit intoxicant other than toddy is an offence. So, it is clear that possession must be "for the purpose of manufacturing of an intoxicant". It is well known that there are four stages in the commission of an offence, i.e., (i) forming an intention to commit the offence, (ii) making preparations therefore, (iii) making an attempt to commit the offence and (iv) actually committing the offence. Since Sec.34(e) of the Excise Act speaks about the person being in possession "for the purpose of manufacturing an intoxicant", it is clear that the offence is committed only when 'manufacturing' is going on, and not before the manufacture, because even to constitute an attempt, the act must reveal, with reasonable certainty, in conjunction with other facts and circumstances, and not necessarily in isolation, an intention, as distinguished from mere desire or object, to commmit a particular offence (see State of Maharastra v. Mohd Yakub (AIR 1980 SC 1111 at 1117 & 1118). It is also relevant to mention that in Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1970 SC
713) the Supreme Court held that the test for determining whether an act of a person constitutes an attempt or preparation is to see whether the overt acts, already done, are such that if the person changes his mind and does not proceed further the acts already done are harmless or not. Therefore, being in possession of black jiggery and alum, even with an intention to manufacture illicit liquor, can, by no stretch or imagination, be said to be an offence, because as per the Excise Act an offence under Sec.34(e) is committed by a person when he is using the material "for purpose of manufacturing" an intoxicant. So, overt act of „making preparation‟ for „manufacture of an intoxicant‟ (i.e. arrack) with the material is the sine quo non for the act to 5 constitute an offence under Sec.34(e) of the Excise Act. In view of thereof sale of black jiggery and alum either together or separately, with or without knowledge that the person to whom they are being sold, is likely to use them for the purpose of manufacturing illicit arrack, is not an offence under Sec.34(e) of the Excise Act, because neither black jiggery nor alum, when sold jointly or separately, are intoxicants as defined in the Excise Act. The purpose for which he is purchasing the goods from a vendor need not be disclosed by the purchaser to the vendor, and even if the purchaser discloses that he has an intention to manufacture arrack from the goods purchased by him, the vendor cannot be said to have committed an offence under Sec.34(e) of Excise Act, because as stated above, neither alum nor back jiggery are intoxicants either by separately or when they are mixed. They at best are raw materials from which arrack an be prepared. When sale of black jiggery and/or alum, for whatever purpose, is not made an offence by the Excise Act or Prohibition Act, the vendor of black jiggery and\or alum would not be committing an offence under Sec.34(e) of Excise Act, when he sells them to a person even with a specific knowledge that the vendee is likely to manufacture illicit arrack by making use of those articles.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended by relying on medical reports to show that the petitioner was beaten by the staff of the respondent police. As seen from the patient assessment report dated 03.11.2025 issued by Ramesh Hospital, it is recorded that the petitioner complained of having been assaulted on his face by another person during an enquiry and, as a result, remained unresponsive and confused, with a fixed stare, for about five minutes, but no loss of consciousness or limb jerks was noted. This contention of petitioner is a matter of fact and subject to evidence and proof.
10. In the instant case, FIR No.171 of 2025 was registered showing the petitioner as Accused No.20. The FIR mentions the following sections as the offences allegedly committed by the accused: Sections 34(a) read with 34(1)(i), 34(1)(ii), and 34(e) read with 50B(b); 34(f) read with 34(2); 34(h) read with 34(2); 36(1)(b) and (c) read with 36(1)(i); 37(b) read with 37(i); and 50 read with 50B(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. 6
11. In Crime No.69 of 2025 of Narsapuram Police Station, the petitioner was granted regular bail in Crl.M.P.No.887 of 2025. Similarly, he was enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.115 of 2025 of Jangareddygudem Police Station. The petitioner also filed Criminal Petition No.6741 of 2025 seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.69 of 2025. While considering that petition, a direction was issued not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, and the investigating officer was directed to file the charge sheet. The son of the petitioner, Mutha Dhruv, filed W.P.No.22152 of 2025 on 02.09.2025, and a Division Bench of this Court closed the writ petition as the detenue (the petitioner's son) had already been released on bail, leaving it open to him to avail appropriate remedies under law.
12. As seen from the case dairy produced by the learned Public Prosecutor, a witness who had been working with the petitioner has categorically stated, in a statement recorded under Section 161 of 'the Cr.P.C.,'/Section 180 of 'the BNSS.,' that the petitioner and Accused No.23 were involved in manufacturing caps for plastic bottles and were illegally printing government logos, labels and symbols on the caps unauthorizedly to give an impression or appearance that they were all government-approved one, with the active support of Accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also stated that the petitioner is known as Manoj Kataria. It is alleged that, for the purpose of filling illegal spurious liquor in bottles, the petitioner supplied caps at unusually higher costs.
13. In Ulli Bhasker supra, it was held that although arrack can be prepared from the articles seized, a conviction cannot be sustained unless it is proved that the possession of such articles were specifically for the purpose of 7 manufacturing illicit liquor. In the present case, it is alleged that the petitioner along with the other accused engaged in manufacturing fake Government logos, labels and symbols intended to be affixed on caps and bottles for filling them with spurious and adulterated liquor, and supplied the same, thereby causing loss to the Government revenue.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2025, seeking permission to receive additional material papers, when the matter was posted on 04.12.2025. After hearing both sides, the application is allowed and the additional documents were received.
15. The petitioner filed an affidavit in which he alleged that he had no connection whatsoever with any illegal liquor activity, his name does not appear in the FIR, and that there was no material connecting him with the alleged offence. Pursuant to a notice issued under Section 35(3) of 'the BNSS.,' the petitioner submitted a reply, sending it via WhatsApp to the mobile of the investigating officer. A notice under Section 35(3) of 'the BNSS.,' was issued to the petitioner, identifying him as a suspect. The petitioner was expected to appear before the police and cooperate with the investigating officer to facilitate the investigation. Instead of doing so, the petitioner refuted all allegations, giving his reply as if it were a counter-affidavit before a Court or a response to an advocate's notice. The reply dated 04.11.2025 essentially contains the petitioner's contentions as if he were seeking quashment of the proceedings. This is not the manner in which the petitioner, being an accused, is expected to cooperate with the investigating officer. 8
16. In view of the specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail. Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab4 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)5, that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of 'the BNSS' is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts.
17. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioners, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of 'the BNSS'. The allegations prima facie disclose a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and custodial interrogation of the Petitioner. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected.
18. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 05.12.2025.
KMS 4 (1980) 2 SCC 565 5 (2020) 5 SCC 1 9 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12215 of 2025 Date:04.12.2025 KMS