CRLP/13839/2026 of NADE MANJU Vs The State of Telangana on 3 September 2026

COMMON ORDER:

1. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), by accused Nos.1 to 3 in COR (Cr). No.51 of 2026 of Prohibition & Excise Station Dhoolpet, Hyderabd District registered for the alleged offences under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”), seeking regular bail.

2. Heard M/s. Chandrashekhar Yadav. S. learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.07.2026, the complainant, along with his team, acting upon reliable information, conducted a raid at the house bearing H. No.11-1-1165/4, situated at Afzalsagar, Mangarbasthi, Mallepally, Hyderabad. During the course of the raid, the petitioners were allegedly found in possession of 9.114 kilograms of dry ganja. It is the further case of the prosecution that, after conducting due enquiry and upon considering the alleged involvement of the petitioners, the complainant lodged a complaint, pursuant to which the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that, except accused No.1, the remaining accused are not residents of the said house. He would further contend that there is no material on record to establish that the petitioners were in conscious possession of the contraband allegedly seized in the course of the raid. It is also submitted that accused No.2 is a lactating mother and accused No.3 is a 19-year-old boy, and that they were taken into custody on 29.07.2026. Learned counsel would further submit that the quantity of contraband allegedly seized is an intermediate quantity and, therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. He would also submit that the investigation has already been completed and that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On the above grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks grant of bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations as well as material on record connecting the petitioners with the alleged offence. He would contend that the contraband was found in the house of accused No.1 and that accused Nos.2 and 3, along with the other accused, are residents of the said house and were found in conscious possession of the contraband. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that accused Nos.4 to 9 are still at large and are evading the judicial process. At the same time, he would submit that the investigation has been completed, though the inventory proceeding under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is still pending. It is also submitted that accused No.2 is involved in a similar crime, vide Crime No.60 of 2025, relating to possession of Nitrovit tablets. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the circumstances of the case, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would pray for dismissal of the bail petition.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel and perused the materials available on record.

8. The allegations against the petitioners are specific and relate to offences punishable under the NDPS Act for their illegal possession of contraband of intermediary quantity. Nonetheless, this fact alone does not dispense with the requirement that the Court examine the necessity and justification for the petitioners’ continued incarceration on the facts and circumstances of each case.

9. In the present case, the petitioners have been in custody for approximately days. Significantly, even according to the prosecution, the investigation is substantially complete and the only remaining exercise is stated to be the preparation/completion of the inventory and the proceedings contemplated under Section 52-A of the

NDPS Act in respect of the seized contraband. Section 52-A prescribes the procedure for the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and contemplates, inter alia, the preparation of an inventory and its certification by the jurisdictional Magistrate, so as to preserve the evidentiary value of the seized material.

10. Thus, where the prosecution itself reports that the substantive investigation has been completed and that only the procedural formalities contemplated under Section 52-A remain to be undertaken, the continued detention of the petitioners merely for the completion of such formalities would require adequate justification. Pre-trial detention is not intended to operate as a form of punishment, and its continuation must bear a reasonable nexus with the legitimate purposes of securing the accused’s presence at trial, preventing interference with the investigation or evidence, and safeguarding the administration of justice.

11. Having regard to the period of custody already undergone, the reported completion of the investigation, the fact that only the inventory/proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act are stated to remain pending, and the absence of any demonstrated necessity for further custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered view that no sufficient ground is made out for continuing the petitioners in custody. The petitioners are, accordingly, entitled to be considered for release on bail, subject to conditions.

12. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petitions are allowed on the following conditions: i) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be released on bail on executing a self-bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. ii) The petitioners shall communicate his residential address and contact numbers to the concerned Court and also Station House Officer and changes if any from time to time, till conclusion of the case. iii) Further, the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 are directed to make themselves available for the judicial process on every adjournment, except for the leave of the Court. iv) The petitioners shall not interfere or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall attempt to tamper with the evidence. v) The petitioners shall not indulge in any illegal activity. If the petitioners commit any breach of the above conditions, the investigating agency/prosecution shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for cancellation of bail before the trial court.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these criminal petitions shall stand closed. _______________ N. TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 03.09.2024 MRKR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13839 and 13845 of 2026 (CNR Nos.HBHC010581012026 and HBHC010581082026)

Dt.03.09.2026

MRKR