APHC010457942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9103/2025 Between: 1. GHATTAMANENI PURUSHOTHAM CHOWDARV ALIAS GHATTAMANENI PURUSHOTHEM CHOWDARRY, S/O. VENKATESWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.14-1-97, GARAGALAMMA VEEDHI, EYE HOSPITAL BACKSIDE, PEDA BODDEPALLE, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS'), seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner-accused No. 2 in crime No. 452 of 2025 of P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 07-08-2025 at about 11 hours at Gayatri Engineering College rear gate, Bakkannapalem, Visakhapatnam, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.M. Palem Police Station, along with his staff and mediators found and arrested accused No. 1 while he was in possession of 3 K.Gs. of Ganja and 01 Gram of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. It is the further case of prosecution that accused No. 1 purchased the said contraband from accused No. 2. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G.Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocentand has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime.It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinnerof his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the rigor of Section 37 of 'the NDPS Act' is not applicable. The petitioner was not spot arrested. The confession of accused No. 1 is not valid as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law.It 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, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined.It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioneron bail at 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 obstructing the course of justice.It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that grant of pre-arrest bail is not feasible when the petitioner had indulged in commission of an offence under the provisions of 'the NDPS Act'. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is 4 submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are three similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner-accused No. 2 under the provision of 'the NDPS Act'. The role of the petitioner has come into light when accused No. 1 gave confession against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner, as seen from the case of prosecution, is that he along with other accused had indulged in dealing with 3 K.Gs. of Ganja and 01 Gram of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. It has to be pointed out that the petitioner has not approached learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance for grant of pre-arrest bail. He has approached this Court directly without exhausting the remedy before learned Sessions Judge. Of course, this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction to exercise the powers under Section 482 of 'the BNSS'. However, jurisdiction would be invoked only when the petitioner establishes that he has a special case or there are extraordinary circumstances as held by the Hon'ble Apex Courtin Mohammed Rasal C and 5 another v. State of Kerala and another1, wherein it is held at para Nos. 7 to 9 as under: “7.The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 CrpC in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre- arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case. 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre-arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/extra-ordinary circumstances. CONCLUSION: 10. The petitioner has not made out any special case let alone extraordinary circumstance to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for granting discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. There are no merits in the petition to grant pre-arrest bail and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________________ Date: 17-09-2025, Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. JSK 1 SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6588 of 2025 6 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9103 OF 2025 DATE: 17-09-2025 JSK