Dismissed¶75

Masthan Ali Khan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jul 2026CRLP/4769/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail denial; 332.91 kgs ganja, commercial quantity; Sections 480 & 483 BNSS bail petitions; Crime No. 362/2025 Bommuru PS, East Godavari District; S.C. No. 102/2026; arrest 23.11.2025; judicial custody 225 days; Accused No. 5 absconding; relied on Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429, Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) (1990) 1 SCC 95, State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122; Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; decided 06.07.2026; Criminal Petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to enlarge the Petitioners on bail at this stage: the charge sheet having been filed within the statutory period of 180 days and the accusation being well-founded, there were no merits in the case for grant of bail. ¶74

Masthan Ali Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3521]

¶2

Date of reserved for orders : Nil

¶3

Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading : 13.07.2026

¶4

APHC010298172026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶6

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶7

MONDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 4769/2026, 4820/2026 & 4826/2026

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4769/2026

¶12

Between:

¶13

MASTHAN ALI KHAN, S/O AYUTJ) KHAN AGED 27 YEARS, R/O GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHJKKBALLAPUR DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE. (A-2)

¶14

MANSUR, S/O SADIQ, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O JNANAMANDIRA SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGAR, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. (A-3)

¶15

SULTAN SALEEM ALIAS SALEEM, S/O AHAMED JAN, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O HOMBAKKAJJI COMPOUND, MADHUGIRI TUMUKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. A-4

¶16

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.2, 3 & 4

¶17

AND

¶18

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

¶19

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶21

1.JESHTADI SUNIL KUMAR

¶22

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶24

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4820/2026

¶26

Between:

¶27

ISMAIL SHAREEF, S/O K.SHAREEF, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O. HUDUGUR VILLAGE, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKBALLLAPUR, DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE (A-1)

¶28

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1

¶29

AND

¶30

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

¶31

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶33

1.JESHTADI SUNIL KUMAR

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶35

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶36

Between:

¶37

MANSUR, S/O SADIQ, AGED 27 YEARS,R/O JNANAMANDIRA SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGAR,GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKBALLAPUR DISTRICT,STATE OF KARNATAKA.

¶38

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3

¶39

AND

¶40

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradeshat Amaravati.

¶41

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶43

1.DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO

¶44

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶46

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶47

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:

¶48

These three Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the Petitioners in the three petitions are different, but the crime registered against them is one and the same.

¶49

The Criminal Petitions have been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 on bail in Crime No.362 of 2025 of Bommuru Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

¶50

Mr.Jeshtadi Sunil Kumar and Mr.Dasari Ramakoteswar Rao, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the Police. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

¶51

Per contra , Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners, submits that the

¶52

¶53

investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed within 180 days, as the accusation is well-founded and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶54

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶55

On perusal of the record, the allegation against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 is that they were allegedly transporting 332.91 kgs of ganja illegally. It is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. All the Petitioners were arrested on the spot. There are no adverse similar criminal antecedents reported against the Petitioners. They were arrested on 23.11.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 225 days. After thorough investigation, a charge sheet has been filed within the statutory period of 180 days, and it has been numbered as S.C. No. 102 of 2026. For Accused No.3, learned counsels Mr.Jeshtadi Sunil Kumar and Mr. Dasari Ramakoteswar Rao filed bail applications; however, the application filed by Mr.Jeshtadi Sunil Kumar on behalf of Accused No.3 was withdrawn. Accused No.5 is still absconding. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Petitioners purchased 332.91 kgs of ganja from Accused No.5 in Orissa, and while transporting the contraband, they were apprehended by the police of Andhra

¶56

¶57

Pradesh. In view of the filing of the charge sheet, the accusation appears

¶58

well ‑ founded, and all the Petitioners were arrested on the spot.

¶59

In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the

¶60

Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶61

8. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh¹ the Hon’ble Supreme Court at

¶62

Paragraph No.7 held as under :

¶63

“In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.”

¶64

9. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)² the Hon’ble Apex Court at

¶65

Paragraph No.24 held as under:

¶66

“The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.”

¶67

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh³ at Paragraph

¶68

No.8 held as under:

¶69

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 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.

¶70

1 (1999) 9 SCC 429

¶71

2 (1990) 1 SCC 95

¶72

3 (2020) 12 SCC 122

¶73

¶74

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, the request of the Petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture, inasmuch as the accusation is well-founded. In view of the filing of the charge sheet within the statutory period of 180 days and the well ‑ founded nature of the accusation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioners on bail at this stage. There are no merits in the case for grant of bail to the Petitioners. Hence, this Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶75