Allowed

Muhammad Ziyad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/13894/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail petition of four accused charged under the NDPS Act for possessing 4.250 kgs of ganja. Bail was granted subject to executing a bond, appearing weekly for investigation, abiding by specific prohibitions, and adhering to Section 480(3) of the BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties; weekly appearance at the spot; adherence to Section 480(3) BNSS conditions.

Muhammad Ziyad 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 SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13894 of 2026

¶4

CNR.No. HBHC010582592026

DATE: 08.09.2026

BETWEEN:

1.Muhammad Ziyad

2.Yadhu Raveendran

3.Vikas Kumar Guptha

4.Dasari Mohan

… Petitioners-Accused Nos.1 to 4

¶12

And

¶13

The State of Telangana Through Prohibition and Excise Station, Khammam – II, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶14

… Respondent - State

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This memorandum of Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 on bail in connection with COR No.66 of 2026 of Prohibition and

¶17

Excise Station, Khammam-II. The offence alleged against the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 is under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶18

¶19

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.13894 of 2026

¶20

Heard Sri B.Muralidhar, learned counsel for the petitioners-A1 to A4 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that mandatory provisions searching, seizure and submitting report to the higher officer as required under Section 57 was not followed. Petitioners – A1 to A4 submitted that seizing ganja, drawing samples in the presence of Magistrate and sending the same to forensic science lab is mandatory as per the procedure laid down under Section 52(A) of NDPS Act, which has not been followed. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 – A1 to A3 are daily wage workers, petitioner No.4 - A4 is doing private job and they are the bread winners of their families. The seized quantity is only 4.250 kgs which is less than the commercial quantity and prayed to enlarge the petitioners – A1 to A4 on bail.

¶22

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the role played by the petitioners – A1 to A4 is depicted in the crime and occurrence report dated 04.08.2026.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners – A1 to A4 on instructions submits that inventory is completed.

¶24

Crime occurrence report dated 04.08.2026 goes to show that A1 to A4 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

¶25

¶26

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.13894 of 2026

¶27

04.08.2026. Property found in possession of the petitioners – A1 to A4 is 4.250 kgs of ganja.

¶28

Petitioners – A1 to A4 filed Crl.M.P.No.895 of 2026 before the learned Sessions Judge which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2026 holding that the allegations primafacie disclose their involvement in the offence.

¶29

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that inventory is not yet completed. The quantity which is seized is 4.250 kgs of dry ganja which is intermediate quantity, the petitioners

¶30

– A1 to A4 are in jail since 04.08.2026 and panchanma is also conducted on the same day. Since the seized property falls under intermediate quantity, the petitioners – A1 to A4 are in jail since 04.08.2026, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i. The petitioners-A1 to A4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition and Excise Cases) at Khammam.

¶32

ii. The petitioners-A1 to A4 shall appear before the concerned SHO between 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m., on every Sunday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing

¶33

¶34

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.13894 of 2026

¶35

of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, as and when required.

¶36

iii. The petitioners-A1 to A4 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

¶37

iv. The petitioners-A1 to A4 shall not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or induce any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

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.

¶39

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶40

Miscellaneous petition/s, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶41

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J

¶42

Date: 08.09.2026 Dua

¶43

¶44

BRMR,J Crl.P.No.13894 of 2026

¶45

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

¶46

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13894 of 2026

¶47

DATE: 08.09.2026

¶48

Dua

Muhammad Ziyad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammad Ziyad 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