Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sagipally Pavan Roshan Roshi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 June, 2025
[3369]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE '
I,)I
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5740 OF 2025
Betwee n :
Sagipally Pavan @ Roshan @ Roshi, S/o. Late Knatha Rao, Aged 24
years, R/o. Pathapatnam village, N/6. AIudu Village, Saravakota
Mandal, Srikakulam DI'StriCt
Petitioner/Accused No.10
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of
A.P., Amaravati, Through 'station House Officer, Narasannapeta poll-Ce
Station. Srl'kakulam District.
Respondent
Petition under sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C & Under Sections 480 &
483 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed I-n Support Of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be
pleased to enlarge the petitioners/ A-10 on Regular Bail I-n connection with
Crime No.57/2025 on the file of Narasannapeta police StatI'On, Srikakulam
DI'StriCt dt.15.02.2025.
The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition
and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of
Sri PUWALA SRINIVASA RAG ,Advocate for the petitioner, PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the court made the following.
APHCO10277582025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5740/2025
Between :
SagipaI'y Pavan @ Roshan @ Roshi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Coun®sel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. PUVVALA SRINIVASA RAO
counsel for the Respondent/complainant
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, u/See.480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhi{a, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/A10, seeking bail,
in Crime No.57/2025 of Narasannapeta Police Station, Srikakulam District.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the
offences punishable u/Sees.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 15.02.2025 morning, Qn
receipt of credible information, regarding illegal possession and
<_J–,`
2
transportation of ganja, the s.I of police, along with staff and mediators
rushed to tank bund street, near venkateswara Temple, Narasannapeta
Town and found nine persons in Suspicious Circumstances. On seeing
police, they tried to ran away. Then POliCe apprehended them. On
questioning, they disclosed the'[r identity part-[cu[ars as that of Al to A9 and
police found 22 kgs of ganja in their POSSeSSiOn and got them into Custody.
Al to A9 confessed about the involvement Of A10 in the commission of the
offence. on 15.02.2025, AIO was arrested.
5. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner COntendS that a Crime Came tO be
registered on 15.02.2025 and basing On the COnfeSSiOn Statement Of Other
accused, who were found to be in possession of 22 Kgs of Ganja, this
petitioner was arrested on the same day and s-lnce then he has been in
judicial custody, as such, prayed to allow the criminal petition.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not disputed the above fact
and opposed to grant ba’ll to the petitioner-
s. After careful observation Of the material On record and SubmiSSiOnS
made on behalf of both sides, it shows that the petitioner was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody on 15.02.2025 basing on the confession
statement of other accused. Evidently nO COntraband has been Seized from
the possession of the petitioner. s’lnce the petitioner has been in remand
from 15.02.2025, this Court found that most Of the investigation Pertaining tO
the role played by the petitioner in the commission of the offence would be
Tgrffff© i
3
completed. It is submittedJ’ that the petitioner is permanent resident of
Srikakulam District as such there is no possibility of his fleeing away from
justice and most of the witnesses are official witnesses and the release of
the petitioner would not cause tampering of evidence and hampering of
investigation. Considering the entire material on record, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with some conditions.
9. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioner/A10 herein shall be released on his executing
a personal bond for Rs.20,OOO/-(Rupees twenty thousand only)
with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram;
(ii) On release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station
House Officer concerned once in a fortnight between 10.00
a.m. and 12.00 noon, for a period of three (03) months.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and
hamper the investigation and shall cooperate for investigation.
p-zzJ£–
sD/-N.NAGAMMA
RI.i GISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// A,/,`, c- ,i,L
-lON \J
OFFICER
SEC
1. The Judicial First-class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram.
2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Srikakulam.
3. The Station House Officer, Narasannapeta Police Station, Srikakulam
District.
4. One CC to SRl. PUWALA SRINIVASA RAO Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court ofA.P., Amaravati
[OUT]-
6. One spare copy
HIGH COURT
TMR,J
DATED: 16/06/2025
BAIL ORDER
CRLP.No.5740 of 2025
a¥*€=;;i-i#aiF±
ALLOWED
i`=-.-_.