Telangana High Court
CRLP/11216/2026 of Khambham Vamshee Dileep @ Vamshi Vs The State of Telangana on 24 July 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11216 of 2026 DATE: 24.07.2026 BETWEEN: Khambham Vamshee Dileep @ Vamshi. …..petitioner/accused No.2 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11216 of 2026
DATE: 24.07.2026
BETWEEN:
Khambham Vamshee Dileep @ Vamshi.
…..petitioner/accused No.2
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
at Hyderabad.
…..Respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.1472 of 2025 before the Raidurgam Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(C), 27 and 29 of NDPS Act.
2. The brief facts of the case revolve around seizure of 12 grams of MDMA and 8.06 grams of OG Kush, from the possession of accused. Alleging the involvement of petitioner in the same, he was implicated in the case as accused.
3. Heard Sri SG. Srinadha Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the offences as alleged, and is falsely implicated in the case. He contended that though the seized contraband is commercial quantity, even after expiry of 180 days period, no chargesheet is filed. Therefore, while averring that petitioner is no way connected to the offence, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, contending that though the quantity of seized contraband is commercial quantity, and there are serious allegations against this petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is in jail since 22.12.2025. That apart, it is noticed that even after completion of 180 days, no chargesheet is filed till now. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the incarceration period of the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, at LB.Nagar. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.
iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.(presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).
7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 24.07.2026 PT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11216 of 2026
Date: 24.07.2026 PT