Dismissed¶¶35

Dandla Mahesh @ Ani v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Jan 2026CRLP/10321/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court NDPS bail rejection; ganja 120 kgs commercial quantity colossal; Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act; parity with co-accused denied; custodial interrogation and extension of investigation pending; Crime No.65 of 2024 Mothugudem Police Station ASR District; arrest 30.07.2025 judicial custody; Crl.P.No.1594 of 2025 distinguished; Criminal Petition No.10321 of 2025 dismissed 27.01.2026; Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa.

What did the court decide?

There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence, nor that, if released on bail, he would not commit similar offences in future; hence his bail request could not be considered at that juncture and the Criminal Petition was liable to be dismissed. ¶¶34

Dandla Mahesh @ Ani Vs the State of Ap — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused No.2 should be enlarged on bail in Crime No.65 of 2024 of Mothugudem Police Station, ASR District, registered for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. +1 more

¶¶25

Court's answer

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

The allegation against the petitioner is that he indulged in dealing with 120 kgs of ganja, characterised by the Court as not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity, which weighed against release on bail.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The petitioner cannot seek parity with accused Nos.3 and 4 (bailed in Crl.P.No.1594 of 2025, dated 21.03.2025), because unlike their situation, an application for seeking extension of custodial interrogation was pending against the petitioner.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS bail refused — High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, 27.01.2026, dismissed Criminal Petition No.10321 of 2025 filed under Sections 437/439 Cr.P.C. and Sections 480/483 BNSS seeking bail for the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.65 of 2024 of Mothugudem P.S., ASR District, for offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act. Allegation: dealing in 120 kgs of ganja seized on 08.09.2024 — held to be both commercial and colossal quantity. Petitioner arrested 30.07.2025 and in judicial custody; police applications for custodial interrogation and for extension of investigation time pending before the Special Court. Parity with accused Nos.3 and 4 (released on bail in Crl.P.No.1594 of 2025, dated 21.03.2025) expressly rejected on the ground that no extension-of-custodial-interrogation application was pending in their case. Held: no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner did not indulge in the offence or would not repeat it; petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

APHC010530992025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10321/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

DANDLA MAHESH @ ANI, S/O. BUGGARAJU, A/21 YEARS, C/BC-A (VADDERA), ALWAL (V), MIDUDHODDI (M), SIDDIPET DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MOTHUGUDEM P.S, ASR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶17

1.DUGGIRALA SUBASH

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶19

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10321 OF 2025

¶24

ORDER:-

¶25

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime.No.65 of 2024 of Mothugudem Police Station, ASR District, registered against the Petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

¶26

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 08.09.2024, upon receiving credible information about the illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, along with his staff and mediators, rushed to opposite of Mothugudem Police Station, Chinturu Mandal, and conducted vehicle checking. They found one Maruthi Ciaz car bearing No.AP-39-AM4059 and seized 120 kgs of ganja from accused. The contraband, along with other materials, was seized under the cover of mediator’s report.

¶27

Heard Mr. Duggirala Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is further submit that the petitioner is a sole breadwinner of his family and has not committed any offence. He would further submit that the accused Nos.3 and 4 in this crime were already granted released on regular bail granted by this Court in Crl.P.No.1594 of 2025, dated 21.03.2025. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner.

¶30

Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner was indulged in dealing with commercial quantity of ganja. The investigation is at nascent stage and the petition seeking for custodial interrogation was filed by the police before the learned Court below was pending and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶31

On perusal of the record, the petitioner/accused No.2 was arrested on 30.07.2025. Since then he has been in judicial custody. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had indulged in dealing with 120 kgs of ganja, which is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. The petition seeking for extension of time for investigation was filed by the police before the Special Court is pending. The petitioner cannot seek parity with accused Nos.3 and 4 whose application was considered by this Court in Crl.P.No.1594

¶32

¶33

of 2025, dated 21.03.2025 on the ground that no application filed for seeking extension of custodial interrogation.

¶34

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioner is released on bail he would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶35