VISHNU BOTLA VENKATA SAI TEJA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR — BA/4613/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010626352025
Filing Number
BA/24627/2025
Filing Date
03-12-2025
Registration No
BA/4613/2025
Registration Date
03-12-2025
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI
Bench Type
Single
Category
BAIL ( 51 )
Sub-Category
Regular ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VISHNU BOTLA VENKATA SAI TEJA
Adv. KHAN SHERALI SHAKHIBGUL
Respondent(s)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI
FRESH ADMISSION (BAIL APPLICATIONS)
FOR ADMISSION (BAIL APPLICATIONS)
FOR ADMISSION (BAIL APPLICATIONS)
FOR ADMISSION (BAIL APPLICATIONS)
FOR CIRCULATION -1
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-12-2025 | FRESH ADMISSION (BAIL APPLICATIONS) |
| 07-05-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (BAIL APPLICATIONS) |
| 24-04-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (BAIL APPLICATIONS) |
| 15-04-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (BAIL APPLICATIONS) |
| 24-03-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION -1 |
Orders
The Bombay High Court dismissed the bail application of Vishnu Botla Venkata Sai Teja, who was charged under the NDPS Act for possession of 15.43 grams of MDMA exceeding the 10-gram commercial quantity threshold. The court rejected the applicant's contentions that the contraband weight was unclear and that he lacked knowledge, finding prima facie evidence of constructive possession through his name and phone number on the parcel, and accepting that the seized quantity constituted commercial quantity, thereby invoking Section 37's embargo on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the bail application of Vishnu Botla Venkata Sai Teja, who was charged under the NDPS Act for possession of 15.43 grams of MDMA exceeding the 10-gram commercial quantity threshold. The court rejected the applicant's contentions that the contraband weight was unclear and that he lacked knowledge, finding prima facie evidence of constructive possession through his name and phone number on the parcel, and accepting that the seized quantity constituted commercial quantity, thereby invoking Section 37's embargo on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts