SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12699

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
Samadan Kantilal Bhise – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP 4068/2026



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4068 of 2026

DATE: 06.04.2026

BETWEEN:

Samadan Kantilal Bhise

…..petitioner/accused No.3

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.3 in Crime No.3 of 2025 before the Rachakonda

##PAGE2##

2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4068 of 2026

Narcotics Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C),

27A and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.07.2025, based on credible information, Rachakonda Narcotics Police apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 3 while they were allegedly transporting 935 kilograms of ganja in a vehicle near Kothaguda, Ranga Reddy District. The contraband, vehicles, and mobile phones were seized under a panchanama, and the accused were arrested. During investigation, the involvement of other accused was revealed, including the petitioner (A3), and offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act were invoked. The petitioner has been in judicial custody

since 28.07.2025, and this is his second bail application.

3. Heard Sri K. Sunil Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of the respondent – State.

##PAGE3##

3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4068 of 2026

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated without any recovery of contraband from his possession and without any specific overt act attributed to him and that mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not followed, and the case against the petitioner is based on alleged confessional statements. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a prolonged period, the investigation is substantially completed, and the prosecution failed to file the charge sheet within the statutory period of 180 days, thereby entitling the petitioner to default bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this

Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in a grave offence involving commercial quantity of ganja, and his role has emerged during the course of investigation through material collected, including confessional statements of co-accused. He contended that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply, and the petitioner is not

##PAGE4##

4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4068 of 2026

entitled to bail. The prosecution further submits that extension of time for filing the charge sheet was duly sought and granted by the Court, and therefore the claim of default bail is not tenable. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss

the criminal petition.

6. This Court, considering submissions made by both the learned counsel and reviewing the material available on record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner that the case is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without following the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity weighing 935 kilograms of ganja. Further, it appears that extension of time for filing the charge sheet was duly sought by the prosecutor and the same was granted by the Court. At this stage, it is pertinent to note

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under:

“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;

##PAGE5##

5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4068 of 2026

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 1[offences under section 19 or section 24 or sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top