Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 05 Jan 2021

Posted on March 8 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court passed this reportable judgment regarding whether a co-accused be a surety to accused in a criminal case.

From Paras 21-26,

21. As discussed supra, the prime object of the surety is to secure the presence of an accused for the purpose of concluding investigation and the trial after filing charge-sheet. A surety should be a fit person. Who is a fit person is not defined or explained anywhere in the Code. Generally, the surety must be a genuine person. He should not be a bogus person. Sureties come to the Court and give undertakings to the Court that he will ensure the presence of accused. If the accused fails to appear before the Court, surety bond executed by the surety will be forfeited. Thus, the Station House Officer has to ascertain the genuineness of surety. It is also relevant to note that there is no prohibition in the Code that the co-accused cannot stand as surety to any accused. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution has not filed any document to show that the mother of the accused is added as accused No. 2 in Crime No. 913 of 2020. Therefore, the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station is not justified in refusing to accept the surety of the mother of the accused. The mother of the accused whether she is co-accused or not can stand as a surety.

22. The apprehension of the prosecution is that both the petitioner and her mother are from Lucknow and there is every possibility of accused jumping on bail in which event the Investigating Officer will not be in a position to ensure the presence of the accused in concluding the investigation.

23. In view of the said apprehension, it is relevant to point out that there is provision in the Code to arrest the surety in the event of accused fails to appear before the Investigating Officer or Trial Court for concluding investigation or trial respectively. There is no provision in the Code to take any other step/action against surety except forfeiting the surety amount, and initiating the procedure laid down under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code which is lengthy procedure.

24. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, the object surety is to ensure the presence of accused for the purpose of completion of investigation and concluding of trial in case of filing of charge-sheet. The surety should be a fit person and a genuine person. He/She should not be a bogus person. The Court or the Station House Officer has to ascertain and take an undertaking from the surety that he/she will ensure the appearance of the accused for the purpose of completing the investigation and concluding the trial in case of filing charge-sheet. The Station House Officer should be satisfied the genuineness and identity of the surety including residential address of surety. The Station House Officer cannot reject or refuse to accept surety offered by mother of the accused, whether she is a co-accused or otherwise.

25. In the case on hand, the petitioner has filed copies of fixed deposit receipts obtained in the name of the mother of the petitioner, local surety and also filed copies of death certificate of his grandfather, flight tickets etc. After completion of funeral rites of his grandfather, he has reached the Hyderabad to offer sureties. But, the Station House Officer has refused to receive the same. In view of the above discussion, the Station House Officer, Madhapur, cannot refuse to accept the surety offered by the mother of the petitioner whether she is a co-accused or otherwise.

26. In view of the above discussion and also the authoritative principles of law, the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, is directed to accept the surety of mother of the petitioner-accused in compliance of the order dated 19.11.2020 passed by this Court in Crl. P No. 5782 of 2020. The time granted for surrender of the petitioner in the said order is extended by two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 05 Jan 2021

Citations: [2021 ALT CRI 1 230], [2021 ALD CRI 1 491], [2021 SCC ONLINE TS 1931]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/60af56e34653d00e3c27c6e2

Earlier Anticipatory Bail Order:

Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 19 Nov 2020

YS Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 26 Aug 2022

Posted on January 8 by ShadesOfKnife

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Para 42.1, 43, 44.1,

42.1. After referring to Section 205 CrPC, Supreme Court held that it is within the powers of the Magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the Magistrate finds that insistence on his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations on the accused and the comparative advantage would be less.

43. Delhi High Court in Chandramauli Prasad (supra) examined Section 205 CrPC in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Limited (supra) and held that provisions requiring the presence of the accused which mandate that the trial be held in his presence are enacted for the benefit of the accused. If the accused person himself does not wish to avail of the right of personal appearance on every date; if he reposes the fullest confidence in the court and in his advocate, and is confident that justice will be meted out to him even in his absence, then, provided his absence does not prejudice him in any way or hinder the progress of the trial, it is not necessary for the trial court to insist on his presence.
44.1. One of the criteria for exercising the power under Section 205 CrPC is that personal appearance of the accused on each and every date of trial should not result in unnecessary harassment of the accused. However, the Court must ensure that exemption from personal appearance is not abused to delay the trial.

And in Para 45,

45. In Hiremagalur Parthsarthy Shamalah (supra), Patna High Court while adverting to Section 205 CrPC and its discretionary nature, opined that power under Section 205CrPC has to be exercised in a reasonable manner; Court should be liberal in granting exemption from personal appearance except where serious issues or allegations of moral turpitude are involved. Even after issuance of warrant, the High Court may dispense with the personal appearance in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC if a proper case is made out for the ends of justice. In that case, the revision petitioners were high officials posted at Pune and Shillong while the trial was to be conducted at Patna. It was held that inconvenience would be caused if they were required to be present on each and every date of hearing; more so when the revision petitioners had given undertaking to be physically present in Court when so ordered by the Court. Mere fact that cognizance had been taken and the offences alleged are non-bailable cannot be reasons for rejecting the prayer under Section 205 CrPC.

Finally from Paras 48 and 49,

48. In so far the impugned order is concerned, the trial court has taken note of the changed circumstances i.e., petitioner occupying the constitutional office of Chief Minister of the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh. However, trial court referred to certain observations made by this Court in the order dated 31.08.2017 that “offences committed by the petitioner are grave offences affecting the economy of the country”. I am afraid it is not open to the trial court to rely upon such observations at the very threshold. These are allegations against the petitioner brought in the form of charge sheet. At this stage, it cannot be said that petitioner had committed the offence(s). Further, the trial court erred that being away from Andhra Pradesh for two days was not a ground to invoke the discretion of the court. The trial court further erred in taking the view that the changed circumstances has no bearing having regard to the offences and allegations made by the respondent/CBI being grave in nature.
49. In my considered opinion, learned Principal Special Judge fell in grave error by bringing in the above factors while considering the request of the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance. This is further aggravated by the observation of the learned Principal Special Judge that in criminal proceedings trial should be conducted in presence of the accused and therefore, his request for exemption from personal appearance should not be considered. I am afraid learned Principal Special Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the principle that trial has to be conducted in presence of the accused is to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial; nothing is done behind the back of the accused. Provision seeking exemption from personal appearance is intended for the benefit of the accused. Those cannot be interpreted in a manner which causes hardship and prejudice to the accused.

YS Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 26 Aug 2022

The earlier order from trial Court is here.

Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs CBI on 01 Nov 2019

Index is here.

Phani Bhushan Potu Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Aug 2022

Posted on December 27, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana HC held as follows,

From Paras 3-7,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in the Calendar Case in question and the trial Court insisted personal appearance of the petitioner for each and every adjournment and the petitioner has to accompany his daughter for her admission into College and, therefore, exemption from appearance may be granted till 10th October, 2022 by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2022.
4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner can invoke Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as his personal appearance is insisted by the trial Court, he did not invoke the said provision.
6. When there is dire necessity for the Accused to be present elsewhere and, therefore, cannot attend the trial Court and make personal appearance, the Courts are liable to consider the ground urged and apply a pragmatic approach. Therefore, this Court considers it desirable to dispose of the present Criminal Revision Case making such a direction.
7. Resultantly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of directing the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, not to insist upon personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused No.3 in C.C.No.280 of 2012 that is pending on the file of the said Court, in case the petitioner files an application either under Section 317/205 Cr.P.C. or under Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990, by raising just and sufficient ground for exemption of personal appearance till 10th October, 2022.

Phani Bhushan Potu Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Aug 2022

Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020

Posted on November 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows:

From Para 18, (When Seizure turns into Impounding – 4 weeks from Seizure)

18. Having given due consideration to the submissions made as above and also taking note of the precedents on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is to be seen that retaining of passport by the police authorities after the same is seized beyond a period of four weeks would amount to impounding by the police authority, which power the said authority lacks, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda V. C.B.I. (2008) 3 SCC 674. Further, this court having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and the provisions of the Cr.P.C. including Section 457 Cr.P.C., has by its order in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in W.P. No.22956 of 2019 held that retaining the seized property by the police after being reported to the Magistrate, would have to be considered only as a custodian and such retaining cannot be considered as impounding by the police authorities and passport holder has to make an application to the concerned Court for release of the passport.

From Para 19,

However, even after commencement of functioning of Courts, if the respondent police authority has failed or fails to take steps in depositing the passport within a period of four weeks, the same would amount to impounding, which power the authorities are not conferred with.

From Para 20,

20. Further, even after the seized material is deposited into Court under seizure report, when it comes to passport seized and deposited into Court, the Court is not empowered to impound the passport under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. upon such deposit. The power to impound a validly issued passport is specifically conferred on the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, being a special enactment would prevail over Cr.P.C. a general enactment. Thus, even after deposit of seized property into the Court, the respondent authority would be required to take further steps by approaching the passport authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and seek for impounding of passport. The said situation can arise only if any one of the condition enumerated in clause (a) to (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 being attracted. At this stage, the judgement rendered by the Madras High Court in Jeyabalan case (supra) would be of aid to the case of the petitioner.

From Para 21 (Very Imp: Passport/Travel document can be cancelled by Passport Authority, even when the physical possession of passport is not there with them)

21. It is also to be seen that for impounding of passport by the passport authority on attracting any of the conditions specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, having of physical custody of passport is neither mandatory nor specified. It is only the satisfaction of the passport authority that any of the conditions stipulated in (a) to (h) of Section 10(3) is attracted, the authority can impound the same, irrespective of where the passport holder is residing at. However, before passing of impounding order, the authority is required to give opportunity of hearing to the concerned. Thus, the claim of the respondent authorities that, if passport is released to the petitioner, it will be difficult to apprehend him again, does not appeal to this Court for being accepted for the aforesaid reasons and also having regard to the wide amplitude of powers, the passport authority enjoys, unless the petitioner escapes to countries with whom India does not have Extradition Treaties or Arrangements or seeks asylum in a country so permitting. Even otherwise, the said apprehension also appears to be without any basis for the reason, the petitioner claims to be working onsite/onshore with an Indian IT company and would be on employment visa and all his details would be available with the employer as to the onsite location of working and client details and at a call of the employer, the employee can be withdrawn and deported from wherever he is.

Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020

Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows (while dismissing the petition),

From Para 6,

6. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, considering the fact that the DVC is of the year, 2018, learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad is directed to dispose of DVC.No.4 of 2018 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102447017/

Connects to a PIL here.

P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022

Posted on August 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court passed note-worthy guidelines in disposing Domestic Violence cases.

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a legislation enacted to shield the rights of women which are enshrined and guaranteed under the Constitution of India, besides paving way to deal with the matters connected to and arising out of the family disputes in an effective and efficacious manner.
7. When the provisions contained in the said legislation i.e., The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2005”, for brevity) are looked into, it is very clear that the proceedings that would be conducted are more civil in nature. The protection orders that would be granted under Section 18, the residence orders that would be granted under Section 19, the monetary reliefs that would be granted under Section 20, the custody orders that would be granted under Section 21 and the compensation orders that would be granted under Section 22, would be based on the applications that would be filed by the aggrieved persons, the domestic incident reports and the defence taken by the respondents therein. All those proceedings are civil in nature. No doubt, Section 28 (1) of the Act of 2005 lays down that the proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is specifically mentioned under Section 28(2) of the Act of 2005 that the Court is empowered to lay down its own procedure for disposal of the applications filed by the aggrieved persons or the Protection Officers. May be due to the fact that the power to deal with the domestic violence cases is given to the Magistrate, the litigant public are under the impression that the proceedings initiated under the Act of 2005 are purely criminal in nature.

Guidelines passed in Paras 12 and 13,

12. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that number of Criminal Petitions are filed before the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings in domestic violence cases, only because the trial Courts are insisting the physical attendance of the respondents in those cases for each and every adjournment.
13. Therefore, before parting with the case, this Court considers it desirable to lay down certain guidelines for the Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, which are empowered to deal with the domestic violence cases, to follow so that the parties would not rush to the High Court.
(1)The Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class which are dealing with the cases filed seeking various kinds of reliefs as laid down under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should take note of the fact that the proceedings therein are more civil in nature.
(2)When the aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person presents an application seeking one or more reliefs that are enshrined under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, upon service of notice as required under Section 13 of the said Act and upon making appearance by the opposite party i.e., respondents therein either in person or through their counsel, the Court shall not insist for their personal appearance for each and every adjournment.
(3)The Courts dealing with the cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall not even insist for filing an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C.
(4)The persons against whom the applications are filed seeking relief in domestic violence cases i.e., the respondents, however, shall appear in person if a specific direction is given for their personal appearance by the Court during the course of proceedings.
(5)The points enumerated above does not however apply during the course of proceedings that are conducted under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
(6) Last but most important is that the Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class which are empowered to deal with the matters under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall make all endeavour to dispose of the applications filed for grant of various reliefs that are provided under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of first hearing, as required under Section 12(5) of the said Act.

P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022

Connects to a PIL here.

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

Posted on August 10, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows:

4. When there is a specific direction from this Court to dispose of the matter time bound, it is not known how the case is still pending. However, considering the request of the petitioner, the criminal petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
1) The Court of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is directed to take up the case in D.V.C.No.61 of 2019 on day-to-day basis and to dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2) In case, the case is not disposed of within one month, the Court of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is directed to submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) narrating the reasons as to why the case could not be disposed of.
3) The above direction is issued not only basing on the merits of the case, but also as Section 12(5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, clearly mandates that the case has to be disposed of within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of its first hearing.

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

Connects to a PIL here.

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Posted on March 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench decision from Telangana High Court passed these guidelines.

Hence, this Court feels that an alternative mechanism shall be evolved to address the plight of these under-trial prisoners / accused:

Parties Advocates shall download the order copy from the High Court’s Website along with case details which are available in the case status information

While filing the memo on behalf of accused for furnishing sureties, the Advocate shall state in the Memo that he / she has downloaded the order copy from the High Court’s Website. The Administrative Officer Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court concerned shall verify the order from the High Court’s Website and make an endorsement to that effect and then shall place the same before the Court.

The Public Prosecutor shall also obtain necessary instructions in this regard and assist the Court.

The Presiding Officer, on the same day, shall dispose of the same and dispatch the release order to the jail authorities concerned forthwith through e-mail or any other electronic mode.

In cases of anticipatory bail, the burden to verify the authenticity of the copy is on the Station House Officer concerned and if necessary, he should obtain necessary instructions from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and complete the process on the same day expeditiously as per law.

The jail authorities on receipt of the release order shall release the accused forthwith.

Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to:

The Principal Secretary for Home Affairs, State of Telangana,

The Director General of Police, State of Telangana,

The Director of Prosecution, who, in turn, shall sensitize the police officers Station House Officers / Public Prosecutors and ensure implementation of this order

Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to all the Principal District Judges in the State, who, in turn, shall sensitize all the Presiding Officers and ensure implementation of this order.

Registrar (Judicial) is further directed to circulate the copy of this order to all the Bar Associations in the State through the Principal District Judges, so that they can effectively address their client’s cause.

Registrar (Judicial) shall also issue a separate notification in this regard and the same shall be displayed in the High Court’s Website.

These directions will apply to all bail application including bails in Criminal Revision as well as Criminal Appeals.

This order shall come into force from 22.11.2021.

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Kade Kumar Swamy Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 02 Dec 2020

Posted on August 7, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A Presiding officer in Telangana went into merits of a petition (which was seeking permanent injunction over a suit scheduled property) and rejected it, even before it was numbered!!! A single judge bench of the Telangana High Court sent the PO to training in Judicial Academy…

Kade Kumar Swamy Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 02 Dec 2020

An earlier instance, just about a month back!!!

Nanavath Raj Kumar Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 04 Nov 2020

Ibrahim Mohammad Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jun 2019

Posted on June 30, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Simple to follow procedure at Telangana High Court if you want to get a case quashed in which non-compoundable offences were registered.

Ibrahim Mohammad Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jun 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198455920/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification

Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 05 Jan 2021

YS Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 26 Aug 2022

Phani Bhushan Potu Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Aug 2022

Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020

Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022

P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Kade Kumar Swamy Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 02 Dec 2020

Ibrahim Mohammad Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jun 2019