Malela Jaya Prakash Goud v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-20. Malela Jaya Prakash Goud v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
t 3385 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY IWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 17006 OF 2025 Between: IVlalela Jaya Prakash Goud, S/o Buchanna Gaud Aged 39 years Occu. Director of IVledha School R/o H. No. 1-34, Thunikinipur Village t\/andal. I\rloosapet Dist' ^/ahabubnagar' ... pETrroNER/AccusED No. 1 AND The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad Through P. S. Hyderabad Narcotics ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. '1 on bail in Crime in FIR No. 9 of 2025 of P. S. Hyderabad Narcotics in the interests of justice.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. V. RAIVIANA RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar,the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER i. j. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF IJ )LANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SI JANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 17OO6 of 2I) 25 DATE:2O. O1. 2o26 BETU/EEN: Malela Jaya Prakash Goud petitioner,' ccused No. 1 And The State of Telangana, . Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ..... Respondent / ()omplainant ORDER This Criminal Petition is frled praying 1l is Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as a< r:used No. O1 in Crime No. 9 of 2025 before the Hyderabad Nz. r r:otics police Station, TG Anti Narcotics Bureau, registered lo the offence SKTI,J crl. P. [o.
17006 of2025 punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. The brief facts of lhc case are that on 14-09-2025, LW- 1, Inspector of Police, Narcotics PS, Hyderabad, registered the above crime alleging seizure of 3. 302 kgs of Alprazolam, intermediate substances, chemicals, manufacturing apparatus, cash, and mobile phones from the premises of Medha School, OId Bowenpally, and arrested Accused No. 1 for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c), 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard T. V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the implication of the petitioner was false, baseless and politically motivated, and rested only on inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused and that there was no evidence of conscious possession, no independent witnesses to the alleged seizure, and the seized substances were yet to be conhrmed by \ SKS,J Crl I No. 17006 of 2025 FSL analysis. He further submitted that the peti ,oner hacl no criminai antccedents, possessed deep social ro ts, and was thc solc bre:rclwinner of his family, including a n.. ror daughter sulfering lrom Autism Spectrum Disorder. I 'rerefore, he prayed thc Court to grant bail to the petitionr,: by allowing this Criminal Petition. 5. On thc other hand, learned Additional PL:I l : Prosecrttor opposed thc submissions made by the learned c: rnsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug reddler.
He further submitted that the investigation is in o - gress and if the petitioncr is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnessc . Hence, he . prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition 6- This Court, considering submissions madl by troth thc learned counsel and reviewing the materiai vailable on record, it is noted that the contention of the petiti, ner that the case is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case r. ' i. s reglstered without follou. ing the due procedure. However, tl ,: Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commer ( a1 quantity weighing 3. 302 kgs of Alprazolam. At this stage, it is SI(s,J Crl. P-No. 17()06 of 2025 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 12 ot OZe1,--1a1 every olfence 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 27 A and also for offences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been grven an opportunity to oppose the application for such . release, ald (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the apptication, the court is satished that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not tikely 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 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.
" 7, In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not I . i. j Crl. P 'Io. 17006 of 2025 guilty and unlikely to commit further offences v hile on bail Given the serious allegations against the petitior r -, this Court is not satisfied that conditions lor granting bail l :-rder Section 37 are met. Therefore, the criminal petition. 1ar: s merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. ,;ed 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disn-rjs Miscellaneous applications, if any pendine sha1l stand closed. SD/- C. DEEPIKA ITANT REGISTRAR ^\l \- ,TRUE COPY// :IECTION OFFICER t To, '1 Tbe Special Judicial First Class [t/agistrate For Excisse t] lses At Manoranjani Complex,Opp Gandhi Bhawan, N am pally, Hyderabad. ! 2 The Station House Officer, Hyderabad Narcotic Police Sla :ion,Unit TG Anti - Narcotics Bureau,Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRI T. V.
RAIVANA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for he State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. AR/PSL fu- HIGH COURT DATED:20l01/2026 _-\:"r l- T tlIib,r R . a ORDER ) 16 )t?! ie- CRLP. No. 17006 of 2025 'f* \\. f,+. ,- '' . -. ::: . 4';':. / - :. -/' DISMISSING THE CRL. P.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.