Partly allowed

Bolla Durga Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/13594/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail petitions under BNSS regarding NDPS charges, the Court granted bail solely to Accused No.2 (Petitioner) based on her status as a breastfeeding mother with no specific acts attributed to her. Bail was denied to Accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 due to specific allegations and actions. All petitions were disposed of under single order.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioner No.2-A5 subject to conditions including personal bond of Rs.10,000, Sunday appearances, and no influence on witnesses.

Bolla Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO Crl.P.Nos.13572 and 13594 of 2026

¶3

(CNR No.HBHC010571792026 (Crl.P.No.13572 of 2026)) (CNR No.HBHC010571902026 (Crl.P.No.13594 of 2026))

¶4

DATED: 8^th SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶5

Crl.P.Nos.13572 of 2026

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bolla Kiran 2. Smt.Bolla Harika Macharla Harika ... Petitioners-Accused Nos.3 & 5 And The State of Telangana ... Respondent-complainant Crl.P.Nos.13594 of 2026 Between: 3. Bolla Durga Prasad 4. Bolla Kamlakar ... Petitioners-Accused Nos.2 & 4 And The State of Telangana ... Respondent-complainant

¶8

COMMON ORDER

¶9

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 480

¶10

and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail

¶11

who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5 in connection with

¶12

¶13

Crl.P.Nos.13572 of 2026 & 13594 of 2026

¶14

Crime No.16 of 2026 of P.S. Rachakonda Narcotic, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners-A2 to A5 are punishable under Sections 8(c) 20(b)(ii)(A) 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(A), 27(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

¶15

Heard Sri Ventrapragada Aravind, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 and 2 – A3 and A5, Sri S.Vamsikiran, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.3 and 4 – A2 and A4 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners - A2 to A5 are innocent and they are falsely implicated in the case. The allegations against the petitioners – A2 to A5 are based substantially upon the statements allegedly recorded by the investigating officer during custody which cannot by themselves, constitute substantive evidence. Prosecution itself records the quantity of ganja recovered from the premises as 14.188 kgs as intermediate quantity, the alleged said quantity is below the notified commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigor of section 37 of NDPS Act cannot be invoked merely on the basis of the quantity of the contraband, particularly when the prosecution has invoked

¶17

¶18

Crl.P.Nos.13572 of 2026 & 13594 of 2026

¶19

Section 27-A against the petitioners-A2 to A5 without placing any specific material demonstrating the essential ingredients of the said provision. The case diary records that A2 to A4 were residing in the same premises and describes them as custodian. Mere residence or alleged custody of premises jointly occupied by several persons cannot by itself conclusively establish exclusive conscious possession. The material presently available does not specifically establish that any particular vehicle was in exclusive possession or control of A4. There is no allegation against petitioner No.2 - A5 that any ganja was recovered from her personal possession. Petitioner No.2-A5 is young mother having a three month old breast-feeding baby boy, continued incarceration of petitioner No.2-A5 would cause serious hardship not only to petitioner No.2-A5 but also to the tender aged infant who is dependent upon her for breast-feeding and prayed to enlarge the petitioners – A2 to A5 on bail.

¶20

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed written instructions of Inspector of Police, Rachakonda Narcotic P.S. Eagle Force, Telangana. Inventory application is filed on 18.08.2026 which is scheduled on 22.08.2026 and the contraband seized is 14.238 kgs of ganja. Investigation reveals

¶21

¶22

Crl.P.Nos.13572 of 2026 & 13594 of 2026

¶23

that there are 225 customers and approximately 29 suppliers from Odisha. Petitioner No.1-A3 played an active role in resisting the police during the raid conducted on 13.08.2026 at 03.25 hours and the Inspector of Police was attacked with sharp object causing bleeding injuries, thereby he lodged a complaint and Crime No.525 of 2026 is registered against petitioner No.1-A3. Investigation is in progress and prayed to dismiss the petitions.

¶24

LW.1-Venkat Ramana, Sub-Inspector of Police has lodged a report before P.S. Rachakonda Narcotics on 12.08.2026, who apprehended A1 and recorded his confession statement and seized the contraband, basing on which FIR came to be registered under different Sections of NDPS Act.

¶25

A1-S.Raju Kumar was served with notice under Section 35(3) and was released on 12.08.2026. Petitioners - A2 to A5 were arrested on 13.08.2026 at 17.30 hours and were produced before the concerned Magistrate on 14.08.2026 since then they are in jail.

¶26

Remand Case Diary goes to show that A1-S.Raju Kumar disclosed that petitioner Nos.3, 1 and 4 - A2, A3 and A4 were procuring ganja from several suppliers from Odisha,

¶27

¶28

Crl.P.Nos.13572 of 2026 & 13594 of 2026

¶29

facilitating and concealing the mode of supply, enabling A1 to obtain ganja through secret location. On 13.08.2026, Inspector of Police has raided at H.No.6-10-117/A/A, Vinayak Nagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad in which the petitioners-A2 to A5 are residing. During the course of investigation, A2 disclosed that he along with A3 and A4 are the custodian of the said premises. On search of the premises, they have recovered 14.188 kgs of ganja in six brown packets. A3 has attacked Inspector of Police with a sharp object causing bleeding injuries on which case in Crime No.525 of 2026 is registered at Balanagar police station. A3 allegedly instigated Great Dane dog against the police personnel to prevent them from entering the premises and apprehending the accused. A3 has allegedly escaped from the premises and jumped from the building, sustained injuries to his ankle and was apprehended by the police personnel.

¶30

Remand Case Diary further goes to show that petitioner No.2-A5 is having 3 months old breast-feeding child. The written instructions goes to show that petitioner No.1-A3 is using the Bank account of petitioner No.2-A5. Investigation revealed that they have identified approximately 225 customers and approximately 29 suppliers from Odisha.

¶31

¶32

Crl.P.Nos.13572 of 2026 & 13594 of 2026

¶33

Petitioner No.1-A3 has snatched the neighbours mobile phone, recorded threatening video that if he is arrested, he will commit suicide. Crime No.526 of 2026 of Balanagar, P.S. Station, Crime No.525 of 2026 and Crime No.527 of 2026 are registered against the petitioner No.1 - A3.

¶34

Specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 - A3, A2 and A4 about their involvement in the remand case diary and in the written instructions. No specific overt acts are attributed against the petitioner No.2 - A5 and she is entitled for grant of bail.

¶35

In the result, petition is allowed against petitioner No.2 - A5 subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i. The petitioner No.2-A5 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 Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excisecum-V Addl. Metropolitan Magistratecum-V Addl. Junior Civil Judge) at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶37

ii. The petitioner No.2-A5 shall appear before the concerned SHO between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., on every Sunday for

¶38

¶39

Crl.P.Nos.13572 of 2026 & 13594 of 2026

¶40

a period of four (4) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, as and when required.

¶41

iii. The petitioner No.2-A5 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

¶42

iv. The petitioner No.2-A5 shall not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or induce any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶43

v. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶44

Petitions against petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 - A3, A2 and A4 are dismissed.

¶45

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶46

closed.

¶47

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J

¶48

8^th September, 2026 PLV

¶49

¶50

Crl.P.Nos.13572 of 2026 & 13594 of 2026

¶51

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

¶52

Crl.P.Nos.13572 and 13594 of 2026

¶53

(CNR No.HBHC010571792026 (Crl.P.No.13572 of 2026))

¶54

(CNR No.HBHC010571902026 (Crl.P.No.13594 of 2026))

¶55

DATED: 08.09.2026

¶56

PLV

Bolla Durga Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bolla Durga Prasad 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