Telangana High Court
CRLP/10302/2026 of Ampili Balraj, Vs The State of Telangana on 15 July 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10302 OF 2026 DATE : 15.07.2026 Between : Ampili Balraj … Petitioner/ A .3 And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad, Through
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10302 OF 2026
DATE : 15.07.2026
Between :
Ampili Balraj
…
Petitioner/A.3
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad,
Through Station House Officer,
Ameenpur Police Station, Cyberabad
…
Respondent/Complainant
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.3 in connection with Crime No.175 of 2026 of Ameenpur Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii)(B), 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).
2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 14.03.2026, acting on credible information received from the SOT, Serilingampally, the police of Ameenpur Police Station conducted a raid at House No.3-17, Ailapur Village, after complying with the provisions of the NDPS Act. During the search, the police allegedly recovered 61 grams of Hash Oil and 1 gram of MDMA from the premises occupied by the accused persons. The accused were taken into custody, their confessional statements were recorded, and the seized contraband, along with other articles was seized under a panchanama. It is further alleged that A.1 had procured the Hash Oil from Visakhapatnam and supplied it through another person to A.2, while A.3 had purchased MDMA from a person at Bengaluru and retained a part of it for his consumption. Hence, the present crime is registered against the accused for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri I.V. Radhakrishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner is a carpenter by profession, the sole breadwinner of his family, and has been in judicial custody since 14.03.2026. Learned counsel contended that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner's possession and that the prosecution has failed to establish that contraband was seized from his exclusive possession. He further submitted that the prosecution version is inconsistent, as it alleges that A.1 supplied the contraband while simultaneously alleging that the petitioner purchased MDMA from another accused, without any supporting material. It is also contended that there is no evidence to show that A.5 sold MDMA to the petitioner and that the petitioner has no acquaintance with A.5. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation is substantially complete, only filing of the charge sheet remains. He further contended that A.2 has already been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.7966 of 2026 by order dated 04.06.2026. He also contended that petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that even though the seized contraband is an intermediate quantity, petitioner is involved in another crime which pertains to NDPS Act. If petitioner is granted bail, he may indulge in similar offences, as such, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and perusal of the material on record, the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 14.03.2026 and the seized contraband is an intermediate quantity. Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner in judicial custody, 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 Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy.
ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks 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 483(2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date : 15.07.2026 Rds
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10302 OF 2026
DATE : 15.07.2026
Rds