The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a man accused of involvement in an organised red sanders smuggling operation, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation. The court held that extending protection at this stage could hamper an ongoing investigation into a larger forest crime network.
Background of the Case
The case arises from Crime No.129 of 2025 registered at Chapadu Police Station in YSR Kadapa district. Ruparam Saran, listed as Accused No.18, approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The prosecution alleges that a group of accused persons entered reserve forest land without permission, felled live red sanders trees, and attempted to smuggle the timber. During the operation, police claimed the accused used criminal force, drove vehicles towards forest officials, and tried to escape with the contraband.
A total of 52 red sanders logs weighing over one tonne were seized along with two cars and a motorcycle.
Arguments from the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the case against Ruparam Saran was weak and rested only on confessional statements made by co-accused after their arrest. No recovery was made from him, and he was not present at the scene of the offence.
“The allegations are general in nature, without any direct role attributed to the petitioner,” the defence submitted, adding that confessional statements of co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Refuses Bail to Woman Accused of Handling Drug Syndicate Finances Under MCOCA
The defence also told the court that the petitioner is an auto-rickshaw driver and the sole earning member of his family. It was argued that the investigation was almost complete and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The petitioner assured cooperation with the probe and compliance with any conditions imposed by the court.
State’s Stand
Opposing the plea, the Assistant Public Prosecutor described the offences as grave and organised in nature. The State argued that the incident involved rioting, attempted murder, criminal conspiracy, and large-scale theft of forest wealth.
“The seizure of red sanders logs and vehicles shows a well-planned smuggling racket,” the prosecution contended, adding that the petitioner’s name surfaced during investigation and that custodial interrogation was required to trace the wider network involved.
The State further warned that granting anticipatory bail could allow the accused to abscond or interfere with evidence, especially when several accused were still at large.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao noted that the allegations were not minor or technical in nature. The court observed that the case involved serious offences affecting public order and forest resources.
The bench remarked that the investigation was still in progress and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy behind the illegal felling and transportation of red sanders.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the court underlined that anticipatory bail is meant to protect personal liberty but cannot be used to shield persons facing prima facie serious criminal allegations.
Decision
Taking into account the gravity of the offences, the stage of investigation, and the specific allegations against the petitioner, the High Court held that it was not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail. The court concluded that granting such relief at this stage would prejudice the investigation.
Accordingly, the criminal petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Ruparam Saran vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 13187 of 2025
Date of Order: 5 January 2026
