Mosuru Dhanunjay alias Mosuri Dhanunjay v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
CRLP/583/2026 · 2026-02-02
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Public Interest Litigationbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 15720 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 15720 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010040182026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 583/2026 Between:
1. MOSURU DHANUNJAY ALIAS MOSURI DHANUNJAY, S/O. MOSURU APPA RAO ALIAS APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. BYLAPUDI VILLAGE, CHEEDIKADA, MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH SHO CHEEDIKADA POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. K PRIDHVI RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 583 OF 2026 ORDER:- 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.48 of 2025 of Cheedikada Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the Petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Heard Mr.K.Pridhvi Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner and other accused were found in possession of 130 kgs of ganja and the petitioner acted as pilot for the vehicle by which the ganja was being transported. 4. 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
3
the petitioner is a sole breadwinner of his family and has not committed any offence. He would further submit that the accused No.3 in this crime was already granted released on regular bail granted by this Court in Crl.P.No.10036 of 2025 dated 15.12.2025. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 5. 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, inventory is not completed and the petition seeking for custodial interrogation was filed by the police before the learned Court below was allowed and urged to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. On perusal of the record, the petitioner/accused No.2 was arrested on
10.07.2025. Since then he has been in judicial custody. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had indulged in dealing with 130 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 was allowed. The petitioner cannot seek parity with accused No.3 whose application was considered by a coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.10036 of 2025 on 15.12.2025 on the ground that the application for seeking extension of custodial interrogation was dismissed. 4
7. 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. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ___________________________________
DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 03.02.2026 S D P
5
56 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 583 OF 2026 03.02.2026
W S D P