Telangana High Court
CRLP/8138/2026 of Bhumani Mahesh, Vs State of Telangana, Through SHO, Miyapur, on 4 June 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8138 OF 2026 Between: Bhumani Mahesh,, S/o. Laxman, Aged: 26 years, Occ: Prrvate Job, R/o
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8138 OF 2026
Between:
Bhumani Mahesh,, S/o. Laxman, Aged: 26 years, Occ: Prrvate Job, R/o H.No.4-1-716/3, Near Filter Bed, Rajampet, Sanga Reddy District.
... Petitioner/Acc used No. 3
AND
State of Telangana, Through SHO, Miyapur,, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor High Court For the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
...Respondent
Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/ accused No. 3 on bail in Crime No. 349/2026 of PS
Miyapur, Cyberabad on such terms and conditions.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8138 OF 2026
DATE OF ORDER:-O4.O6.2o.26
BETWEEN:
Bhr-rmani Mahcsh
Petitioner/ Accused No. 3
AND
The Statc of Telangana
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:
Respondent ]. This Cnminal [)etirion is liled under Sections 4gO & 4g3 of the llharatir-a \agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking t() cnlarge the pctrrionr.r. u ho is arral,ed as accused No.3 in Crirne No.349 of '2026, on the lile of Mivapur Police Station, Cl,berabad. on bail. The olfences alleged against the petitioner/ accused No.3 are under Sections g(c) read with 22(C) and 27 oi Narcotic. Drr:gs ar-rd psl.chotropic Substances INDPSr Act, 1985
2. Hc:trd k'anterl colutscl lor thc petilioncr/accused No.3 as rvell as learnecl AddrLronal public I)rosecLltor appearing for the respondent S t:r te
3. The brief facts of the case are that a contraband weighing 12.6 gram of MDMA was seized from the possession of the petitioner/ accused No.3 along with accused No.2 under a cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. The contraband seized is a commercial quantiry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the commercial quantit) for thc, con[raband MI)MA rs 10 grams as per the provisions of Section 36 of NDPS Act. However, since the seized contraband is only 12.6 grams, which is marginally above the commercial quantity, the stringent conditions of Section 37 are not attracted and the petitioner/ accu sed No.3 is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and is innocent and he was falsely implicated in the present crime and that no prima Jacie material is proved to atlract Lhe offencc under Section 8(c) read wiLh 22(C) and 27 of NDPS Act
5. karned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the pe titioner/ accused No.3 and accused No.2 hatched a plan to visit Bangalore to purchase MDMA at lower price and to sell the same to needy customers for getting huge profits and as such, contacted accused No. 1. It is contended lhat investigation is in progress and the contraband seized is more than commercial quantity. As such, the pe titioner / accused No.3 has to substantiate his case' so as to satisi\' lho twin conditions envisagecl unde'r Secli,rn ll7 of the NI)PS n ct, 1c)85
6. trvidentlr. the pctitioner / accused No.3 along with accused paving Rs.25,000,' and lhev intendcd lo sell lhe same to needy custome rs lor higher raLtcs and that. thc contraband seized is 12.6 No.2 havc allegedll, purchased the contraband in Bangalore bv grams of MDMA u,hich is morc than a commcrcial quantity and [he tr,t,in conditions t'n.,'isirgecl r:ndcr Section 37 of NDPS Act are not csrabiish<:rl to crrlargt the pt'trtioncr on Lrail. In that vien' of the matrer, it is not a fir case to enlarge the petitioner/ accused No.3 on bail. In such t:ircumstance s, the criminal petition rS devoid of ments and is hable to be dismissed
7. ln the resuit. rhe Criminal Petirion stands dismissed
8. Misr'cllan,'ous applrcrrrrons. J;c.nding il an1-, shall stand clo sed Sd/- A, SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. The VlllAddrtional Judicral First ctass Magistrate at Kukatpally, RR District
3. The station House officer, A/iyapur porice siation cyberabad Com m iss ione rate.
4. Two ccs to Pubric Prosecutor, High court for the State of rerangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 One CC to Sri S Surender Reddy Advocate [OpUC]
6. Two CD Copies Sa I I
HIGH COURT DATED: 0410612026
ORDER
CRLP.No.8138 of 2026 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION c Jo 1gE SlA76' oA s$ JuT il6 7?- G)\ d \fo. \(J rr.o "\=-:i.- .nlrla b t c LL