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