[3521 I ]N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATJJ/;;: WEDNESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE E== : PRESENT: fty¥ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9081 OF 2025 ctJ~ Between : ~ Pattanetti Naveen @ Pattanethi Naveen, S/o Sriramulu, Aged about 25 years, resident of Devagudi Village, Jammalamadugu MandaI, YSR Kadapa DistrI-Ct. Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through Pendlimarri Police Station, Kadapa, High Court of A.P. Amaravathi. Respondent Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C and Under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the F.I.R No. 82 of 2025 on the file of Pendlimarri Police Station, Kadapa District. The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petitI'On and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T DIWAKAR REDDY Advocate for the Petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOFR (AP) for the Respondent and the Court made the following. /, / ~-.~ EE APHCO10450362025 :=FE: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH I AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) I WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9081 OF 2025 [3521] Betwee n : 1.PATTANETTI NAVEEN @ PATTANETHI NAVEEN, S/O SRIRAMULU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DEVAGUDI VILLAGE, JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. u.PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through Pendlimarri Police Station, Kadapa, High Court of A.P. Amaravathi. H.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhi{a, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in. Crime No 82 of 2025 of Pendlimarri \ Police Station, Kadapa District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused herein for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (for brevity !the NDPS Act'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 02.07.2025, on receipt of credible informat'lon, the Police along with Panchayatdars proceeded to the crime scene, where they noticed that the Accused was found in possession of dry ganja, weighing 1.150 gms,Jg!bich was seized from his possession, apprehended the Petitioner and registered the above case. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri T. Diwakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, w-lthout any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may l'mpose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. lt is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperatI-On in future PrOCeedI'ngS. lt iS also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged {o allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE : 5. Per confra, Ms. P. AkhI'la Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still undervay and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submI-tted that enlargement of the Petitioner on bail a{ this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non- COOPeratiOn from the Petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstruct]-ng the course of J'uStiCe. lt iS also urged that there exI'StS a real and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. ln the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentI'OnS Of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: "Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?" /I E= =E=Z ANALYSIS: 7. The case of the prosecution is that, the Petitioner be-lng a sole Accused was found 1.150 grm-s of dry ganja. lt is not a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 70 days. The Investigating Officer has examined six witnesses, they are all official witnesses. Material portion of investigation is completed. Important witnesses have been examined. Therefore, chances of the Petitioner tampering the evidence or hampering the invest'lgation are bleak. The `----------` Petitioner has got fixed abode. He is a permanent resident of Devagudi Village, Jammalamadugu MandaI, YSR Kadapa District. E= CONCLUSION: 8. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Offences Court, Kadapa. ii. ` The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Station House Offi`cer, Pendlimarri Police Station, Kadapa District, on `<± every Saturday in between 10:00 am and O5:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioner/Accused shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioner/Accused shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogatl'on by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The Petitioner/Accused 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. vii. The Petitioner/Accused shall surrender his passport, if any, {o the investigating officer. If he claim that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavl-I to that effect to the Investigating Officer. ll. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Sd/-SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT EJ3lSTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judicial Magistrates of lst class and ProhibI-lion & Excise Offences Court, Kadapa. 2. The I Additional Sessions Jridge, Kadapa. 3. The Superintendent, central Prison, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 4. The Statl'on House Officer, PendlimarrilPolice Station, Kadapa. 5. One CC to SRI. T DIWAKAR REDDYAdvocate [OPUC] 6. Two cos to Public Prosecritor (AP) High Court ofA.P., Amaravati [OUT]. 7. One spare copy 't `t. .~t\RI,' |ir_ + _ ® HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 10/09/2025 BAIL ORDER I CRLP.No.9081 of 2025 ALLOWED I ¥.I. j€,€x?f.I,p.,