Shajeer Motungara, 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.6027 OF 2026 DATE : 01.05.2026 Between :
Shajeer Motungara ...
Petitioner/A.4 And The State of Telangana, ... Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.2556 of 2025 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(C) r/w.20(b)(ii)(c), 22 (c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). 2.
The brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2025, the SI of Gachibowli PS received information that two persons were in
- 2 - possession of prohibited drugs at SM Luxury Guest Room, Madhapur. Acting on the information, the police apprehended A.3 Gutha Teja Krishna and A.6 Pakanati Lokesh Reddy, seizing 14.54 grams of MDMA from A.3 and 1.29 grams from A.6. Based on A.3's confession, a further raid was conducted at Night Eye Hotel, Madhapur, where A.4 Shajeer Motungara, A.5 Vennela Ravi, A.7 Harshavardhan Reddy, and A.8 Manne Venkata Prashanth were found, and contraband including 11.09 grams of MDMA and 4.67 grams of ganja was seized. Hence, case was registered against the accused for the above offences.
3.
Heard Sri Bandi Venkat Sai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState. 4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.4 contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that even the prosecution records are inconsistent, as his status was allegedly changed from A.8 in the FIR to A.4 in the remand case diary without proper reasons. It is submitted that the petitioner had come to Hyderabad from Bengaluru in search
- 3 - of employment and had no acquaintance with the other accused persons or connection with the alleged offence. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner was not present at the alleged scene of offence and that the case against him is based on a false and concocted seizure. It is contended that investigation is substantially complete except filing of the charge sheet and no material evidence has been collected to show his involvement. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for about 170 days, has no criminal antecedents, and is the sole breadwinner of his family, whose father is suffering from health issues and requires his support. He also contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident, there is no likelihood of absconding, he is ready to cooperate with the investigation and trial, and his continued incarceration amounts to pre-trial punishment and violation of his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, prayed this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.
5.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the recovery of MDMA and ganja from the premises, coupled with the petitioner's
- 4 - presence along with other accused, establishes his involvement in the offence. He further submitted that charge is not yet filed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6.
Having regard to the submissions made and the material placed on record, it is seen that petitioner is in jail for more than five months and till today charge sheet is not filed. Considering the period of incarceration of petitioner in jail and the facts and circumstances, 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 II Additional Judicial Magistrate Judge cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy at Kukatpally.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., on every Wednesday 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.
- 5 - 7.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :01.05.2026 Rds
- 6 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6027 OF 2026 DATE :01.05.2026 Rds