Telangana High Court
CRLP/9991/2026 of Vaddadi Sai Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana on 13 July 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 9991 & 9999 of 2026 DATE: 13.07.2026 IN Crl.P.No.9991 of 2026 BETWEEN: Vaddadi Sai Kumar. …..petitioner/accused No.1 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 9991 & 9999 of 2026
DATE: 13.07.2026
IN Crl.P.No.9991 of 2026
BETWEEN:
Vaddadi Sai Kumar.
…..petitioner/accused No.1
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of
Telangana, at Hyderabad.
…..Respondent
IN Crl.P.No.9999 of 2026
BETWEEN:
Naramnad Praveen Kumar.
…..petitioner/accused No.4
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.
COMMON ORDER
Crl.P.Nos.9991 of 2026 and 9999 of 2026 are filed by petitioners praying this Court to enlarge them on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 4, respectively, in Crime No.175 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), r/w.20(b)(ii)(B), 27(a) of NDPS Act.
2. The brief facts of the case revolve around seizure of 61 grams of hasish oil and 1 gram of MDMA, from the possession of petitioners, and other accused.
3. Heard Sri IV. Radhakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for petitioners, in both cases, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He contended that the quantity of contraband seized is intermediary, and the investigation being complete, he prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent –State, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that the investigation is not yet concluded. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that the quantity of contraband seized is intermediary. That being so, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to the compliance of following conditions:
i. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each, (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 petitioners shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.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 petitioners shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently Section 480(3) of the BNSS).
7. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 13.07.2026 PT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 9991 & 9999 of 2026 DATE: 13.07.2026 PT