Allowed

A-2 Madhagoni Dhinesh Kumar, v. The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O, P.S. Excise Hayathnagar

Telangana HC18 Dec 2025CRLP/16907/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS in an NDPS case involving seizure of 152 grams of hashish oil, an intermediate quantity. The court noted prolonged custody and substantially completed investigation, and granted bail on conditions including a personal bond and weekly appearances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.10,000 with two like sureties, subject to conditions including weekly appearance before SHO for eight weeks or till charge sheet.

A-2 Madhagoni Dhinesh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16907 of 2025

¶4

DATE: 18.12.2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Madhagoni Dhinesh Kumar

¶7

…. Petitioner/accused No.2

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., P.S. Excise Hayathnagar, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

¶10

…. Respondent/Complainant

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of

¶13

BNSS, seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who arrayed as accused No.2 on bail in C.O.R. No.138 of 2025 of Excise Hayathnagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

¶14

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2025, on reliable information, the complainant conducted an inspection and found the accused Nos.1 and 2 in possession of 152 grams of weed oil or hashish oil. Basing on the same, a criminal case was registered against the accused for the alleged offence.

¶16

Heard Sri Pothamshetti Manoj Kumar, 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.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and that the seized contraband i.e.,152 grams of hashish oil, constitutes an intermediate quantity. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.11.2025 and that all the material witnesses have been examined and further detention of the petitioner is unwarranted. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that although the seized contraband falls under the category of intermediate quantity, the investigation is

¶19

¶20

still ongoing and has not yet been completed. Therefore, granting bail to the petitioner, at this stage, does not arise. However, he informed the Court that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶21

Considering the submissions of both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the seized contraband i.e.,152 grams of hashish oil falls under the category of intermediate quantity and the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.11.2025, and a substantial portion of the investigation has already been completed. In view of these circumstances, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶22

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶23

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.

¶24

¶25

iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

¶26

iv. The prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner at any time, if they are found to be involved in any other case of similar offences.

¶27

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed.

¶28

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶29

closed.

¶30

_______________ K. SUJANA, J

¶31

Date: 18.12.2025 SS

¶32

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶34

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16907 of 2025

¶35

Date: 18.12.2025

¶36

A-2 Madhagoni Dhinesh Kumar, v. The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O, P.S. Excise Hayathnagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A-2 Madhagoni Dhinesh Kumar, v. The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O, P.S. Excise Hayathnagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithun Mandal, Vs The State of Telangana

Bitten Parichha, Vs Union of India through Si, Ncb, Hyderbad zone.

Rayudu Chandra Sekhar @ Sekhar, Vs The State of Telangana

Kakkirala Srihari Vs Rampalli Srinivas

Malela Buchanna Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Khilla Dhana Vs The State of Telangana