Dismissed

Sri Shankar Rao Kuda v. the State by Union of India

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2026CRL.P/16937/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Karnataka High Court dismissed criminal petition for bail. Court held commercial quantity of ganja seized in vehicle owned by petitioner's aunt attracted rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act, negating grounds for bail despite no personal recovery from petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's bail petition under Section 483 BNSS (Section 439 CrPC) dismissed as prisoner in custody.

Sri Shankar Rao Kuda Vs the State by Union of India — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:7576 CRL.P No. 16937 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16937 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SHANKAR RAO KUDA S/O LATE K. MALAYA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT HATAGUDA VILLAGE NANDAPUR BLOCK ODISHA-764 038

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA A.C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE BY UNION OF INDIA NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT MHA, NO. 7/1, PRIYANKA VILLAS RAMANNA GARDEN KATTIGENAHALLI BAGLUR MAIN ROAD YALAHANKA BENGALURU-560 063 REPRESENTED Y ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. SHRIDEVI BHOSALE M, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.P is FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:7576 CRL.P No. 16937 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.166/2025 (NCB CASE NO.48/1/13/2025/ZU) OF THE RESPONDENT NARCOTICS CONTROL BURREAU, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(c) R/W 20(b)(ii)(C),25,27,27A,28,29 OF NDPS ACT, 1985, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHIKKABALLAPURA.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by accused No. 4 under

¶25

Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Spl.C. No. 166/2025 (NCB case number 48/1/13/2025/BZU) registered for offences under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27, 27A, 28, 29 of NDPS Act pending on the file Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶27

learned counsel for respondent.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the contraband has been seized in Indica car in which accused No. 1 was traveling. Petitioner and accused

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:7576 CRL.P No. 16937 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were traveling in a Swift car and nothing

¶33

has been recovered from the Swift car. There is no personal search of the petitioner and other accused. Accused No. 3 has been granted bail by the Special Court. Sample has been collected on the next day. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.04.2025. As the complaint is filed, petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶34

Per contra learned counsel for respondent would contend that the NCB Officer had received credible information that two cars were involved in transportation of contraband. On Swift car bearing registration number AB 39 UT 7392 in which accused Nos. 2 to 5 were traveling being stopped at toll, at that time another Tata Indica car bearing registration No. CG 17 KE 3100, took a u-turn and the officers caught it at a distance in which 63.700 kg of Ganja was found and has been seized under mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Said car is of the

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:7576 CRL.P No. 16937 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ownership of one Mallika Kuda – aunt of this petitioner.

¶38

The other accused are having criminal antecedents involved in drug trafficking. The quantity of contraband seized is three times the commercial quantity. The contraband was found in the trunk kept in the car. Therefore, no personal search of the accused persons was conducted. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of he committing similar offence. Accused No. 3, who has been granted bail by the Special Court, is only on medical ground. On these grounds, she prayed to reject the petition.

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the complaint and other materials placed on record.

¶40

The NCB officer received credible information regarding transportation of contraband in two cars. They intercepted a Swift car bearing No. AB 39 UP 7392 at a toll plaza and at that time Tata Indica car bearing registration No. CG 17 KE 3100 took a u-turn and officers stopped it at

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7576 CRL.P No. 16937 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

a distance. In the said Tata Indica car, there was a trunk and it contained 63.700 kg of Ganja and it has been seized by the Officer. In the said car accused No. 1 was present. In the swift car, accused Nos. 2 to 5 were present. Even though the contraband has seized in the other car in which the petitioner was not traveling, the said car was of the ownership of one Smt. Mallika Kuda - aunt of this petitioner. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are relatives of this petitioner. The other accused, that is accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 are having criminal antecedents involved in drug trafficking and it has been mentioned in paragraph No. 37 of the complaint. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 20 years. As the quantity seized is commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. At this stage there are no grounds to say that petitioner is not involved in drug trafficking.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:7576 CRL.P No. 16937 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Considering the above aspects, petitioner has

¶48

not made out any grounds for grant of bail.

¶49

In the result, petition is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶51

LRS

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri Shankar Rao Kuda v. the State by Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shankar Rao Kuda v. the State by Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajib Rabidas Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Gayathri.P Vs the State by Ccb Police Station.

Sri Shabbir Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Riyaz @ Chapper Riyaz Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vignesh Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Y Govindappa @ Baby Vs State of Karnataka