M. Venkata Krishna Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2026

Telangana High Court

M. Venkata Krishna Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2026

       IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                       AT HYDERABAD

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

                  CRIMINAL PETITION No.3265 of 2026

                               Dated: 02.04.2026

Between:

M.Venkata Krishna Rao
                                                                 ...Petitioner
                                   AND

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court Hyderabad and another
                                                               ...Respondent


                                   ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order,

dated 23.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.25 of 2026 in Crime No.10 of 2025

SPONSORED

by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Additional

Family Court Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Kushaiguda, where under the

application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to re-open his factory,

was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr.S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar

Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner factory

namely M/s.PNM Life Sciences Private Limited was seized on 09.10.2025

in connection with Crime No.10 of 2025 on the alleged ground that the

contraband of 225 Kgs of Ephedrine was seized from the possession of

accused No.1, though the petitioner has not committed any offence. The

alleged contraband does not come within the NDPS Act, as it was seized

from the possession of accused No.1. There is no coercion between the

petitioner and other accused. Learned trial Court without properly

considering the contentions of the petitioner dismissed the application

erroneously. He further submits that the petitioner company is having more

than 50 employees. Unless the factory is permitted to be reopened, the

petitioner and its employees will be put to great hardship. He further

submits that the entire investigation has been completed and continued

seizure of the factory would serve no useful purpose. The petitioner

undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the

conditions which are to be imposed by this Court.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that that

the there is a clear conspiracy between the petitioner and other accused and

huge contraband was seized from the possession of accused No.1. The

investigation is under progress. The trial Court, after giving cogent reasons,

has rightly dismissed the application. At this juncture, the petitioner is not
3

entitled to seek to reopen of the factory and the criminal petition filed by the

petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and

after perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the

petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.10 of 2025 and the

petitioner factory was seized through seizure panchanama dated 09.10.2025.

Though the petitioner raised the grounds that contraband was seized in

Crime No.10 of 2025, it does not attract the ingredients for the offences

under Section 8(c), 9A, 21(c), 25, 25A, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and

there is no conspiracy between the petitioner and other accused. The

contraband was seized neither from the possession of accused No.3 nor from

the factory. Hence, this Court is not inclined to deal with the said ground

that the nature of application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to re-

open the factory, the petitioner specifically pleaded that the petitioner

factory having more than 50 employees the petitioner factory was seized on

01.10.2025.

6. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is inclined to grant permission to re-open the factory namely

M/s.PNM Life Sciences Private Limited subject to the condition that the

petitioner/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/-

(Rupees five lakhs only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned

I Additional District and Sessions-Cum-Additional Family Court Judge,
4

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Hyderabad. The petitioner shall file an

undertaking that he will cooperate with the investigation and also permit the

Investigating agency to conduct investigation in the premises of the factory

whenever is required and petitioner shall not alienate, create any third party

rights in respect of factory premises or equipments which are lying in the

factory till conclusion of investigation and also without obtaining permission

of the trial Court.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

Dated: 02.04.2026
Note: Issue CC by 09.04.2026
b/o
mnv/nsp