HomeOther LawsSeized Quantity Of Smuggled Marijuana Was Not Commercial: Telangana High Court Grants...

Seized Quantity Of Smuggled Marijuana Was Not Commercial: Telangana High Court Grants Bail to 2 Foreign Nationals

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Telangana High Court has granted bail to Pilassary Meethal Thajul Diyoof and Valappil Safa Abdulla two foreign nationals accused of smuggling 8.705 kilograms of suspected marijuana (ganja) from Bangkok to Hyderabad, holding that the quantity allegedly seized falls within the category of an intermediate quantity and considering the period of custody already undergone by the accused.

The bench of Justice K. Sujana while allowing two criminal petitions filed by the accused, who were arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Hyderabad Zonal Unit, in connection with offences under Sections 20, 23, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

According to the prosecution, DRI officers acted on specific intelligence inputs indicating that two passengers travelling from Bangkok, Thailand, to Hyderabad on IndiGo flight 6E-1068 on May 19, 2026, were carrying narcotic substances in violation of the NDPS Act. The passengers were intercepted at the Green Channel area of the Customs International Arrival Hall at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, in the presence of independent witnesses.

The DRI alleged that a total of 8.705 kilograms of ganja/marijuana was recovered from the possession of the accused. Following the seizure, a case was registered and both individuals were remanded to judicial custody on May 20, 2026.

The accused argued that they had been falsely implicated and had remained in judicial custody since May 20, 2026. It was further submitted that the quantity allegedly recovered—8.705 kilograms—constituted an intermediate quantity under the NDPS framework and therefore did not attract the stringent bail restrictions applicable to commercial quantities. The petitioners also expressed willingness to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

The DRI opposed the bail applications, contending that the value of the seized contraband exceeded ₹14 lakh and that the narcotic substance had allegedly been transported from Bangkok into India. The agency also informed the Court that the investigation was still in progress and argued that the accused had an alternative remedy of seeking bail before the trial court.

The High Court noted that the accused had been in custody since May 20, 2026, and that the quantity allegedly seized was 8.705 kilograms of suspected ganja/marijuana, which falls within the category of intermediate quantity. The Court also considered the stage of investigation, the nature of allegations and the duration of incarceration.

Taking these factors into account, Justice K. Sujana held that the case was fit for grant of bail and ordered the release of the accused subject to conditions.

The Court directed each accused to execute a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the XXV Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad. The accused have also been directed to appear before the investigating authority every Monday at 11:00 a.m. for eight weeks or until the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier, and thereafter whenever required for investigation. They must also comply with the conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Read More: Income Tax Reassessment Time Limit Can’t Be Extended Indefinitely: Chhattisgarh HC

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Mistaken Claim of Eligible IGST Credit Under CGST/SGST Heads Is a Technical Error, Not Wrongful ITC Availment: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the mere utilization of eligible Integrated Goods...

Isabgol Seeds Procured Through APMC Exempt from GST; Not Covered Under ‘Goods of Seed Quality’ Entry: AAR

The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that fresh and unprocessed Psyllium...

Reply Format For Show Cause Notice Issued Only For Interest Demand Under FORM DRC-01

Here’s the reply format for show cause notice issued only for interest demand under...

Broken-Period Interest on Sale of NCDs Taxable as Interest, Not Capital Gains: ITAT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that broken-period...

More like this

Mistaken Claim of Eligible IGST Credit Under CGST/SGST Heads Is a Technical Error, Not Wrongful ITC Availment: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the mere utilization of eligible Integrated Goods...

Isabgol Seeds Procured Through APMC Exempt from GST; Not Covered Under ‘Goods of Seed Quality’ Entry: AAR

The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that fresh and unprocessed Psyllium...

Reply Format For Show Cause Notice Issued Only For Interest Demand Under FORM DRC-01

Here’s the reply format for show cause notice issued only for interest demand under...