Telangana High Court
CRLP/8144/2026 of A3). Sonji Suryakanth @ Sury, Vs The State of Telangana, on 4 June 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX IPrl-fliln THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO IiITI,IN NO: u A3). Sonji Suryakanth @ Sury,, S/o Sonji Vilas Rao,Aged about 26 Years, Occ. Accumulator in Hydraulic
[ 34851
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
IPrl-fliln
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
IiITI,IN
NO: u
A3). Sonji Suryakanth @ Sury,, S/o Sonji Vilas Rao,Aged about 26 Years, Occ.
Accumulator in Hydraulic Machines (Fifter Work) at EP Process Filters and Accumulators, Gandhi Nagar, Near Shivaji Maharaj Statue, Rl/o H.No. 8-5414, Srinivas I'laqar, Chintal, Quthbullapur, Hyderabad.
.PETITIONER/ACCUSED
The State of Telangana,, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, (Through RlO, Dundigal Police Station, Dundigal Division, Medchal-Cyberabad Commissionerate)
...RESPONDENT'COMPLAINANT
Petition r: -;.:. Section 437143814391482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased topleased to enlarge the Petitioner/A3 on regular bail in FIR No.
0912026 of Dundigal Police Station, Dundigal Division, Medchal-Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(bXiiXC) and 2? cf the NDPS Act, 1985, pending investigation/trial, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PORIKA VIKAS RAJ , Advocate fo. ti:. tretitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No.
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAI)
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
PETITION No.8l44 of 2o26
Datez o,4.06,2026
A'3: Sonji Suryakanth -@Sury
... Petitioner
AND
The State ofTelangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, (Through SHO, Dundigal Police Station, Dundigal Division, Medchal-Cyberabad Commissionerate.
...Respondent
ot$DcIiE
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.
1. The petitioner is arraycd as accused No.3 in Crime No.9/2026 on the fiIe of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad District with the alleged offence under Sections 8c, read with 2O(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Heard Sri P. Vikasraj, learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.3 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent -State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on O6.OL.2O'26 at 16:30 hours, the respondent - Police authorities received a complaint from State Police wherein it is stated that on 03.01.2026 at about .*-.."".
- SCR, J Crlp_8144 -2026 11:00 hours, while the Sub_Inspector of police of Dundigal pS was performing his routine duties in the porice station, he received credible and specific information that three persons were ,regally selling hashish oil at House No.5-59, 6O yards, situated at Vivekananda nagar Colony, D-pochampally, Dundigal. Believing the information to be true and correct, he reduced the information into writing and in the appropriate books and communicated the same under Section a2el of the NDpS Act, and made a GD entry in this regard. Then, he sent a requisition to the ACp, Medchal Division to provide services of clue team. 4, Basing on the s€une, appropriate search was conducted by following due procedure envisaged under law. Thereafter search was conducted and seized the contraband i.e., hashish oil contained in small containers of 261 in number and such other things by fotlowing due procedure, and also recorded confession of the said persons, wherein it was reveared that the petitioner along with other friends, who are arrayed as accused, also has a habit of taking ganja, and thereafter developed the trading of contraband and the net weight of the total seized contraband i.e., hashish oil was about 1305 grams, which is commercial quantity. The competent officer has arrested the accused and produced them i SCR, J Ctlp _8t44 _2026 before the competent Court, who were sent to judicial demand on
03. O1.2026. Since then, the petitioner/accused No.3 is in judicial custody.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the contraband is weighting about 1305 grams, it is just marginally above the commercial quantity of one kilogram, and therefore, the condition under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, is applicable in the present case. Learned counsel would further contend that entire investigation has been completed and the petitioner has been languishing in the judicial custody since O3.OL.2O26. In that view of the matter, learned counsel would contend that the petitioner be enlarged on bail by imposing conditions.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that in fact the contraband is more than the commercial quantity as such the twin condition under Sectiort 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, have to be satisfied for enlarging the petitioner on bail. Moreover, since it is a commercial quantity, it is not a lit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail and that subsequent investigation has [o be carried on so as to determine who are other accomplices along \
- SCR, J Crlp-8144 _2026 with petitioner/accused No.3. Evidently, the contraband seized is 1305 grams of hashish oil which is more than the commercial quantity and that no grounds are raised by the petitioner/accused No.3 to Substantiate the case to satisfy the twin conditions envisaged under Section 3Z of the NDpS Act, 19gS, for granting or "pf$ the. petitioner on bail. In that view of the matter, criminal Petition 'is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. , I 8 'Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed. As a seque.l;' miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAL DE UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// E ION OFFICER
1. The State of Telangana,, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. Hyderabad, (Through RlO, Dundigal Police Station, Dundigal Division, I': ctlclral-Cyberabad Commissionerate)
2. One CC to SRl. PORIKA VIKAS RAJ Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
4. Two CD {- .:.:.;es To, KA *
HIGH COURT DATED: 041OG12026
ORDER
CRLP.No.81'14 of 2026 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION i E STATE ,/ir;*t /q i53s z or .L s Jullfr I Dtsp t \a,