Thunam Aravind @ Advik 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.15781 of 2025 DATE: 18.12.2025 BETWEEN:

Thunam Aravind .....Petitioner/accused No.2 And The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Through Station House Officer, P.S. IS Sadan.

.....Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.155 of 2025 before the I.S. Sadan Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20((b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 25.06.2025, the Detective Inspector of Police, IS Sadan PS, received credible information that a man was transporting ganja in a white Hyundai Verna bearing No. AP21AN6489 and would pass through IS Sadan X Roads. He recorded the information, informed his superior officer, obtained permission under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, arranged for the clues team and two mediators from the MRO Office, and proceeded to verify the information and seized 45 kgs of Ganja. Basing on the same, a crime was registered for the above said offences. 3.

Heard Sri Pasham Trivikram Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated at the instance of the de facto complainant and had no connection with the alleged offence and that no specific allegations were made against the petitioner, that the ingredients of Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act were not attracted, and that the police had registered the case with ulterior motives only on the

confession of the accused No.1. He further contended that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents and that investigation was almost completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition. 5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, 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, it appears that the petitioner is in jail since 11.07.2025. As seen from the record, the material part of the investigation has been completed and L.Ws.1 to 9 witnesses have been examined.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the incarceration period of the petitioner, 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 learned Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad.

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).

8.

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 18.12.2025 SS

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15781 of 2025 Date: 18.12.2025 SS