In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has granted bail to two individuals arrested in connection with a massive drug precursor haul valued at approximately ₹72 crore. Justice K Sujana delivered the order, highlighting a crucial legal distinction in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
The Case and the Seizure
The case stems from a raid conducted by the Cyberabad Narcotics Police in October 2025 at premises located in Jeedimetla. During the operation, authorities allegedly seized nine bags containing 225.16 kilograms of ephedrine, a substance described as a precursor for manufacturing methamphetamine. The estimated street value of the seizure was placed at a staggering ₹72 crore.
The accused, identified as Maddu Venkata Krishna and Musini Dora Babu, were allegedly involved in conspiring to clandestinely manufacture and store the ephedrine at PNM Life Sciences, a chemical company, with the intent to sell it. They had been in judicial custody for over 50 days before moving the High Court for bail.
The Court's Legal Reasoning
Justice Sujana's order hinged on a critical classification under the NDPS Act. The court observed that ephedrine is listed as a "controlled substance" and not as a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance itself. This distinction proved pivotal.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor D Arun Kumar, argued vehemently against bail. He described the case as a "well-organised and highly coordinated illicit narcotics manufacturing operation" that posed a "serious threat to public health and safety." He contended that the investigation was at a crucial stage and that releasing the accused would obstruct the probe.
However, the defence counsel, advocates R Prasanth and S Ganesh, successfully argued that since ephedrine is a controlled substance, the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply. Section 37 imposes strict prerequisites for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
The court agreed with this interpretation. It noted that the concept of "commercial quantity" specified in the NDPS Act schedules applies specifically to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, not to controlled substances like ephedrine. Furthermore, the offence alleged against the accused falls under Section 25(a) of the NDPS Act, which deals with allowing premises for illegal manufacture or storage and does not carry a mandatory minimum sentence.
Bail Conditions and Implications
In its order dated December 23, 2025, Justice Sujana stated, "The contraband is a huge quantity; it does not fall under the commercial quantity under the schedule annexed to the NDPS Act. The petitioners herein are in jail for the last more than 50 days …Hence, this Court deems it fit to grant regular bail."
The bail was granted subject to specific conditions. Each accused must execute a personal bond of ₹25,000. They are also required to appear before the concerned investigating authority every Wednesday for eight weeks, and thereafter as needed for the ongoing investigation.
This ruling underscores the nuanced legal framework of the NDPS Act. While ephedrine is a critical precursor for making dangerous drugs like methamphetamine, its classification dictates the procedural rigor applied during trial stages like bail. The decision highlights the balance courts must strike between enforcing stringent anti-drug laws and adhering to the specific legal definitions and procedures established by statute.
