Jasram v. The State Of Telangana ,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.224 of 2026 DATE: 27.01.2026 Between:
Jasram and another .... Petitioners/A1 & A2 AND The State of Telangana, through P.S. Nampally, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
.... Respondent/Complainant
O R D E R
This criminal petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners/A1 & A2 seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.118 of 2025 of Julurpad Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c), 27A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 27.05.2025, on reliable information, the de-facto complainant and his staff conducted vehicle checking and found accused Nos.1 and 2 in possession of 830.54 kilograms of ganja. Immediately, they conducted seizure panchanama and seized the contraband. Basing on the same, the police registered a case against the accused for the above offences.
3.
Heard Sri G. Kumar Yaddlapalli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, are innocent of the allegations and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contended that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 28.05.2025, i.e., for a period exceeding 240 days, and till date no charge sheet has been filed by the investigating authority. In view of the prolonged incarceration without completion of investigation, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioners.
5.
On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, stating that the alleged offence falls under the provisions of the NDPS Act and that the seized contraband constitutes a commercial quantity. In view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he contended that the petitioners are not entitled to bail. However, he informed the Court that no charge sheet has been filed as of today.
6.
In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appeared that though the alleged contraband was of commercial quantity, no charge sheet had been filed by the investigating authority after the completion of the mandatory period. As seen from the record, the material part of the investigation had already been completed and L.Ws.1 to 13 had been examined. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration of the petitioners, and the fact that no charge sheet had been filed, this Court deemed it fit to grant bail to the petitioners/A1 and A2, subject to certain conditions: i.
The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem.
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, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 27.01.2026 SS
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.224 of 2026 Date: 27.01.2026 SS