Allowed

Unnam Surendra @ Suri v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Aug 2025CRLP/9481/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition by accused Nos.2 and 3 in an NDPS case involving seizure of 820 grams of cocaine-ephedrine mix. Noting ephedrine is not in the NDPS schedule, individual quantities were unseparated, the FSL report was awaited and the accused had no criminal antecedents, the court granted conditional bail.

What did the court decide?

Conditional regular bail: Rs.30,000 personal bond with two sureties each, Monday reporting to SHO for four weeks or till charge sheet, subject to Section 483(3) BNSS conditions.

Unnam Surendra @ Suri Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9481 of 2025

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking bail in Crime No.725 of 2025 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 21(c), 25-A and 29 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

¶5

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.06.2025, petitioners along with other accused were found in possession of 820 grams of Cocaine and Ephedrine mix. Basing on the same, present crime was registered.

¶6

Heard Sri K. Madhu Swaroop Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-State.

¶7

¶8

SKS,J Crl.P.No.9481 of 2025

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and they were falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted the police seized the contraband of Cocaine and Ephedrine mix, according to them total quantity of the contraband was 820 grams. Though the Ephedrine contraband is not included in the Schedule of the NDPS Act, and carrying the Ephedrine is not an offence under the provision of NDPS Act. The police have not identified the alleged Cocaine and Ephedrine as the contraband seized is more than a commercial quantity. He further submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 02.06.2025 and since then, they were in judicial custody and the entire investigation is completed, except filing of charge sheet. He further submitted that the petitioners are not involved in similar offence and they are not having any other criminal antecedents and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by the conditions, which are re going to be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed for grant of bail.

¶10

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have committed grave offences

¶11

¶12

SKS,J Crl.P.No.9481 of 2025

¶13

under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The police seized contraband substances, namely 820 grams of cocaine and ephedrine, which constitute a commercial quantity. He further submitted that the investigation is currently in progress, and if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, they may repeat the same offence, interfere with the investigation, and influence the witnesses. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of bail.

¶14

In view of the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the police seized contraband substances, namely 820 grams of cocaine and ephedrine. According to the prosecution, the contraband seized in the present case constitutes a commercial quantity. However, the prosecution itself acknowledges that the police have not separated the cocaine and ephedrine, nor have they specified the individual quantities of each substance. Furthermore, the possession and transportation of ephedrine are not included in the schedule appended to the NDPS Act. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the FSL report is awaited. The record further reveals that the

¶15

¶16

SKS,J Crl.P.No.9481 of 2025

¶17

petitioners were arrested on 02.06.2025 and have been in judicial custody since then. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioners are not involved in any similar offences and do not have any criminal antecedents.

¶18

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail in favour of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(i) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the XII Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

¶20

(ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 A.M. on every Monday for a period of four (4) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is

¶21

¶22

SKS,J Crl.P.No.9481 of 2025

¶23

earlier, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter as and when required.

¶24

(iii) After release, if the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 indulges in similar offence, the respondent-State is entitled to file an application seeking cancellation of the bail granted by this Court in their favour.

¶25

(iv) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483 (3) of BNSS.

¶26

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶27

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶28

_______________ K. SUJANA, J

¶29

Date: 11.08.2025 SS

¶30

¶31

SKS,J Crl.P.No.9481 of 2025

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶33

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9481 of 2025

¶34

Date: 11.08.2025 SS

Unnam Surendra @ Suri v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnam Surendra @ Suri v. The State of Telangana

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

Sri Jyothi Swaroop Gattani Vs Sri Talakokkulwar Lachanna

Voruganti Jyothi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.B.Susheela, Vs Smt. K.Swarupa Rani

Vadthyavath Gopi Vs The State of Telangana

Namburi Sai Siddartha Vs The State of Telangana

Yangala Narendra Vs The State of Telangana