A3). Sonji Suryakanth @ Sury, 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.8265 of 2026 DATE: 15.06.2026 BETWEEN:

Sonji Suryakanth @ Sury.

.....petitioner/accused No.3 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

.....Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.09 of 2026 on the file of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad District with the alleged offence under Sections 8(c), read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 06.01.2026 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 11:00 hours, while the Sub-Inspector of Police of Dundigal PS was performing his routine duties in the Police Station, he received credible and specific information that three persons were illegally selling hashish oil at House No.5-59, 60 yards, situated at Vivekananda Nagar Colony, D-Pochampally, Dundigal. Believing the information to be true and correct, he reduced the information into writing in the appropriate books and communicated the same under Section 42(2) 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.

3.

Heard Sri P. Vikasraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the contraband is weighing 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 03.01.2026. In that view of the matter, learned counsel would contend that the petitioner be enlarged on bail by imposing conditions.

5.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, contending that the allegations are serious in nature. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6.

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, 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.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of I Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Additional Family Court Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

ii.

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week 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 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: 15.06.2026 PT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8265 of 2026 Date: 15.06.2026 PT