Telangana High Court
Nekkanti Srinivas Alias Baba Alias … vs The State Of Telangana on 13 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3518 of 2026
DATE: 13.04.2026
BETWEEN:
Nekkanti Srinivas
.....petitioner/accused No.1
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
at Hyderabad.
.....Respondent/complainant
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to
enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused
No.01 in Crime No.957 of 2023 before the Narsingi Police
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3518 of 2026
Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.09.2023 at
about 16:00 hours, the police allegedly intercepted a DCM
vehicle near Narsingi Flyover and apprehended Accused
Nos.3 and 4, from whose possession certain packets
containing 691 kgs ganja, described in the seizure
panchanama as dried leaves with pungent smell, were
seized from a concealed compartment beneath vegetable
boxes. The investigation was completed and the charge
sheet was also filed vide S.C.NDPS No.64 of 2025.
3. Heard M/s. Jurislit Law LLP, appearing on behalf of
the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent – State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present NDPS case without any material evidence and that
the petitioner was not present at the scene of offence and no
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3518 of 2026
contraband or incriminating material was recovered from
him, while the entire seizure was from Accused Nos.3 and 4,
who have already been granted bail. The implication of the
petitioner is solely based on the alleged confessional
statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible in law and
not supported by any independent evidence. He further
submitted that even the seizure does not prima facie satisfy
the definition of ‘ganja’ under the NDPS Act and there are
serious procedural lapses, including delay in sending
samples to the FSL. He contended that the petitioner has
voluntarily surrendered, is a permanent resident, has no
criminal antecedents. Therefore, he prayed the Court to
grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal
Petition.
5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra v. State of Gujarat
and another, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547, Wajid Ali @
Tinku v. State of Rajasthan passed in SLA (Crl.) No.7049
of 2025, Jabir Kha v. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in
SLP (Crl.) No.2993 of 2025.
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3518 of 2026
6. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelliegence, reported in (2021) 2
SCC 485, is extracted hereunder:
“18. Therefore, in conclusion:
18.1 Once the accused files an application for bail under
the Proviso to Section 167(2) he is deemed to have
‘availed of’ or enforced his right to be released on default
bail, accruing after expiry of the stipulated time limit for
investigation. Thus, if the accused applies for bail under
Section 167(2), CrPC read with Section 36A (4), NDPS Act
upon expiry of 180 days or the extended period, as the case
may be, the Court must release him on bail forthwith
without any unnecessary delay after getting necessary
information from the public prosecutor, as mentioned
supra. Such prompt action will restrict the
prosecution from frustrating the legislative mandate to
release the accused on bail in case of default by
the investigative agency.
18.2 The right to be released on default bail
continues to remain enforceable if the accused has
applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the
bail application; or subsequent filing of the chargesheet
or a report seeking extension of time by the prosecution
before the Court; or filing of the chargesheet during
the interregnum when challenge to the rejection of the bail
application is pending before a higher Court.
5
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3518 of 2026
18.3 However, where the accused fails to apply for default
bail when the right accrues to him, and subsequently a
chargesheet, additional complaint or a report seeking
extension of time is preferred before the Magistrate, the
right to default bail would be extinguished. The
Magistrate would be at liberty to take cognizance of the case
or grant further time for completion of the investigation, as
the case may be, though the accused may still be released
on bail under other provisions of the CrPC.
18.4 Notwithstanding the order of default bail passed by the
Court, by virtue of Explanation I to Section 167(2), the actual
release of the accused from custody is contingent on
the directions passed by the competent Court granting bail.
If the accused fails to furnish bail and/or comply with the
terms and conditions of the bail order within the time
stipulated by the Court, his continued detention in
custody is valid.”
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a
drug peddler and that there are 10 crimes were pending
against the petitioner. He further submitted that the
investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released
on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and
may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to
dismiss the criminal petition.
6
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3518 of 2026
8. In the light of the rival submissions and upon perusal
of the material available on record, this Court is required to
examine whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of
default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section
36A(4) of the NDPS Act, as interpreted by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in M. Ravindran (cited supra).
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in judicial
custody from 14.08.2025. The statutory period prescribed
for completion of investigation in NDPS cases involving
commercial quantity is 180 days. The petitioner contends
that no charge sheet was filed against him within the said
stipulated period and that no steps were taken to regularize
his arrest within time. On the other hand, the prosecution
asserts that the charge sheet had already been filed before
the trial Court, though the petitioner was shown as
absconding at the time of filing of the said charge sheet, and
that subsequently a supplementary charge sheet has also
been filed after securing his presence.
10. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
indefeasible right to default bail accrues to an accused only
7
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3518 of 2026
when (i) the investigation is not completed within the
prescribed period, and (ii) the accused avails such right by
filing an application before filing of the charge sheet. If the
charge sheet is filed prior to the filing of the bail application
invoking default bail, such right stands extinguished.
11. In the present case, the material placed before this
Court indicates that the charge sheet was already filed
before the competent Court, though the petitioner was
shown as absconding. After his arrest was regularized, the
prosecution has also taken steps by way of filing a
supplementary charge sheet. Therefore, it cannot be said
that there is a complete failure on the part of the
investigating agency to file the final report within the
statutory period so as to vest the petitioner with an
indefeasible right to default bail.
12. Further, on merits, the contraband seized is of
commercial quantity i.e., 691 kgs of ganja, attracting the
rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The allegations
against the petitioner, coupled with his involvement in
multiple other cases as stated by the prosecution, disentitle
8
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3518 of 2026
him from being released on bail at this stage, as this Court
is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that he is not guilty of the offence or that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.
13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioner is neither entitled to default bail nor to regular
bail on merits. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 13.04.2026
SAI
9
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3518 of 2026
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3518 of 2026
Date: 13.04.2026
SAI
