% A APHC010280792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI v: f. Ili FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ¥ is •fK.'-?' •'v., ^ 'A PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5811 OF 2025 Between: Pamu Susi Vijay Paramajyothi, S/o.late Abraham, Age 64 years. R/o.D.No.2- 458, APHB Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry Urban Mandal, E.G. District. ...Petitioner/Accused-2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.Amaravathi. ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Gadepalli Police Station, Kakinada District to release the Petitioner/Accused as A-2 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime no.38 of 2025 for the offence punishable Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the file Gandepalli Police Station, Kakinada District, on dated 06-02-2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: A APHC010280792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) QMS [3521] v: FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5811/2025 Between: PAMU SUSI VIJAY PARAMAJYOTHI, S/O.LATE ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. R/O.D.NO.2-458, APHB COLONY, LALACHERUVU, RAJAHMUNDRY URBAN MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KAKUMANU JOJIAMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.38 of 2025 of Gandepalli Police Station, Kakinada District, it registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 8(c) read'^ with 20{b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.03.2025 upon receiving credible information regarding illegal possession of Ganja, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Gandepalli Town Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, conducted a raid and apprehended the accused while they were transporting 359.950 kilograms of Ganja, packed in 18 plastic bags. The police seized the contraband, and based on the seizure and the confession of the accused, registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2025 of Gandepalli Police Station, Kakinada District. 3. Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case; he is sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he will repeat the same offence; and it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 3 ' 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. As seen from the record, the allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.2 are that the petitioner, along with the other accused, was found in possession of 359.950 KGs of Ganja. It is also reported that the petitioner/Accused No.2 has a history of similar adverse antecedents. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.9540 of 2025, dated 07.07.2025 in the case of Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana, in general Anticipatory Bail is not maintainable against the accused, who involved in NDPS cases. 6. IS Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role in this case and the adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner, this Court does not deem it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner/A-2 to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and move an appropriate application for his release before the Special Court concerned. 7. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner/A-2 to surrender before the learned jurisdictional A Magistrate concerned within receipt of copy of this the learned Special Court Judge shall endeavour a period of one (01) week order and move from the date of^x appropriate application before an for enlarging him on bail. The learned Special to dispose of the application on its own merits in accordance with law by giving due and sufficient to the learned Public opportunity of hearing the learned Special Court Prosecutor before and pass appropriate orders wi within a reasonable ti time, preferably in two (02) days. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Gadepalli Police Station, 2. One CC to Sri. Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju. Advocate 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Amaravati. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies Kakinada District. [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at CHP vna IP HIGH COURT DATED:25/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 5811 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION