Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/2665/2026 of MANAS MAHANKUDA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 14 April 2026
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2665/2026 Between: 1.MANAS MAHANKUDA, S/O. GHANASHYAM MAHANKUDA, AGED
APHC010179722026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2665/2026
Between:
1.MANAS MAHANKUDA, S/O. GHANASHYAM MAHANKUDA, AGED 20
YEARS, R/O. MUNIGUDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, RAYAGADA
DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE - 765020
2.JAYADEV GOWD,, S/O. BHASKAR GOWD,
AGED 19 YEARS, R/O.
MUNIGUDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,
3.SUNIL KUMAR,, S/O. ELIYA KUMAR,
AGED 22 YEARS, R/O.
MUNIGUDA
VILLAGE
AND
MANDAL,
RAYAGADA
DISTRICT,
ODISHA STATE - 765020
4.JANAKESH
KUMAR
KODARAKA,,
S/O.
RAMARAO
KODARAKA,
AGED
YEARS,
R/O.
MUNIGUDA
VILLAGE
AND
MANDAL,
RAYAGADA DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE - 765020
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Station House Officer, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.CHERUVU CHAITANYA BHARGAVA SARMA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2665 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.4, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.4 of 2026 of Anandapuram Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioners were found together in possession of 22kgs of Ganja while they were transporting the same by two motor cycles.
3. Heard Sri Cheruvu Chaitanya Bhargava Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been in judicial custody since 05.01.2026, and prays that this Court may pass appropriate orders.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Ganja seized from the petitioners is of commercial quantity. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Considering the submissions made and upon a fair perusal of the material placed on record, this Court notes that the case involves seizure of 22 kgs of ganja, which constitutes a commercial quantity.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1 at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under:
8. To curb the spread of dangerous drugs, Parliament has mandated that an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be granted bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122
and will not commit offences while on bail. The High Court failed to justify ignoring these mandatory conditions when releasing the accused. Instead of considering the grave socio-economic and health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament.
19. Section 37 imposes additional, overriding restrictions on the grant of bail, beyond those under Section 439 CrPC, through its non obstante clause. It prohibits bail unless two mandatory conditions are met: the prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. If either condition is not fulfilled, the bar against granting bail applies.
20. The term “reasonable grounds” requires more than mere prima facie satisfaction; it demands substantial, probable causes showing the accused is not guilty. Such belief must arise from facts and circumstances sufficient to justify that conclusion. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the strict object of Section 37, and its liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act was unwarranted.
21. The learned Single Judge failed to record the mandatory finding required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non for granting bail in such cases.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioners are released on bail they would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh petition as and when required. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 15.04.2026 SAB
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2665 of 2026 Dt.15.04.2026 SAB