Telangana High Court
Ulangi Venkataramana vs State Of Telangana on 27 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11116 of 2026
DATED 27th JULY 2026
Between:
Ulangi Venkataramana
... Petitioner-Accused
And
State of Telangana,
Rep. EXCISE GHATKESAR P.S.
Through its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent
ORDER
1. 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 petitioner on bail
who is arrayed as sole accused in connection with Crime No.29 of
2026 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Ghatkesar. The offence
alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section 8(c)
r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act‘).
2. Heard Sri P. Nishith Raj, learned counsel for petitioner, and
Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
appearing for respondent – State.
2
BRMR,J
Crl.P.No.11116 of 2026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner-sole accused has been falsely implicated in the present
case and the prosecution story is highly improbable, does not
inspire confidence and the entire prosecution case is founded upon
the alleged prior secret information received by the Excise officials.
The prosecution claims to have acted upon such information.
However, it is a settled principle of law that the mandatory
safeguards contained under Section 42 of the NDPS Act require
strict compliance. He further submits that the prosecution has
failed to demonstrate complete compliance with the mandatory
statutory safeguards, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the
legality of the search and seizure. Further, the prosecution has not
investigated or disclosed the alleged source of procurement of the
contraband and the alleged confession attributed to the petitioner
while in the custody of the Excise officials has no independent
evidentiary value. The alleged recovery is required to be proved
during trial. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedents and has never been involved in any offence under the
provisions of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been in custody
since 17.03.2026, the investigation has substantially progressed
and notwithstanding the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
3
BRMR,J
Crl.P.No.11116 of 2026
this Court is empowered to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing
this criminal petition.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that
1.040 kilograms of hashish oil is seized from the possession of the
petitioner which constitutes a commercial quantity. Application for
inventory is made before the learned trial Court on 16.05.2026,
investigation is still in progress and prayed to dismiss the criminal
petition.
5. On perusal of the material available on record, petitioner has
been arrayed as an accused in C.O.R.No.29 of 2026 and has been
in judicial custody since 17.03.2026. The Prohibition and Excise
Officials seized 522 grams of hashish oil (coded as M1) and 518
grams of hashish oil (coded as M2), total to 1.040 kilograms and
two mobile phones, namely, (i) Vivo V70 Elite (SIM No.
7989744465) and (ii) Hero Shakti Keypad (SIM No.9211896331),
were also seized. The quantity of the alleged contraband falls
within the category of commercial quantity under the provisions of
the NDPS Act.
6. It is appropriate to refer to Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
which reads as under:
4
BRMR,J
Crl.P.No.11116 of 2026“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),–
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for
1[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A
and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall
be released on bail or on his own bond unless–
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity
to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application,
the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b)
of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any
other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.”
7. It is observed by the learned trial Court, while dismissing the
bail application in Crl.M.P. No.463 of 2026 that the quantity of the
contraband allegedly seized from the petitioner/sole accused
constitutes a commercial quantity, bail cannot be granted unless
the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and
that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
5
BRMR,J
Crl.P.No.11116 of 2026
8. It is to be noted here that the inventory application filed by
the prosecution on 16.05.2026 is still pending before the learned
trial Court and that the investigation is still in progress. Petitioner
has failed to demonstrate the existence of reasonable grounds to
believe that he is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail. In view of the foregoing
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner has not made out any case for grant of bail and there are
no merits in the present Criminal Petition and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
Date: 27.07.2026
SS
