Gugulothu Sglamla v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the rd respondent in issued the impugned'Warrant in-R;C:No.fu9412025, d1.05.03.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and also violative of procedure prescribed under BNSS and consequently set aside warrant in R.C.No.4"/94/2025, dt.05.03.2O25 and also direct the 4th respondent to release the petitioner from the Sub-Jail, at Narsampet, Warangal district. i|::r ..:. : IA NO: 10F 20125 Petition under Section r51 cpc praying that in the ciroumstances stated in the affidavit firec in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent no.4 herein to rerease the petitioner herein from the sub-Jair, at Narsampet, Wa rangal district, forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRt MOGILI ANAVENI counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: Gp FoR pRoHtBlfloN ExcrsE Counsel for the Respondent NO.3 & 4: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIO N No. 7648 0F 2025 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking the following relief: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particulady, one in the nature of 'WRIT OF MANDAMUS', declaring the adion of the 2"d respondent in issuing the impugned Warrant in R.C.No' A'194/2025, dated 05.03.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and Z1 of the Constitution of India ard also violative of procedure prescriiled under BNSS and consequently set aside Warrant in R.C.No. A/94i 2025 dated 05.03.2025 and also direct the 4h respondent to release the petitioner from the Sub-lail, at Narsampet, Warangal District, and pass such other orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances ofthe case"'

2. Heard Mr.lVlogili Anaveni, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, representing the respondent No. 1 .

3. ln the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has been committed io prison under a warrant for breach of bond for good behaviour executed under Section 122 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., and this Court vrde interim order dated 21.03 2025 released the petitioner from the Sub-Jail, Narsampet, Warangal District, forthwith.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive MagistrateiTahsildar (respondent No.2) issued a warrant for the 2 Nnt,/ ll:'.P.No. 7618 ol 202i petitioner's colnmittal to prison, citing failure to furnish security for good behaviour. The petitioner had been directed to execute a bond with surety for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of one year. Upon the petitioner's faillre to comply, respondent No.2 treated it as a default and committed the petitioner to imprisonment for a period of one year, on the ground that slre had failed to provide the requisite security for good behaviour.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that, based on information fron the Excise lnspector regarding a breach of bond, the Tahsildar issued a notice of forfeiture. Thereafter, the impugned warrant was issued and the petitioner was committed to prison for failure to furnish the bond with surety, However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that there is no record to indicate that any proceedings or enquiry were conducted by the Executive Magistrate prior to issuing the vvarrant.

6. I have carefully examined the materials on record

7. A close examination of the impugned warrant reveals that the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar (respondent No.2) proceeded to issue the warrant solely on the ground that the petitioner had failed to execute the bond with surety for Rs.'1 ,00,0001, as previously directed. Notably, no opportunity war; given to the petitioner to explain or respond before the ,. . ..,....::,,,,, ,........ ,' / ^ s*#\ .' i]';.'''&,, 3 ^^'/ lV.t'.N0. 7618 ol2025 issuance of the warrant. lt must be emphasizgd that mere non-compliance with the direction to furnish a bond and surety does not constitute an offence, nor can it be equated to a conviction warranting imprisonment.

8. The record further shows that the warrant of imprisonment was issued on the basis of default in providing security. On 1g.01 .2025, a criminal case was registered under Section 7-A read with section g(e) of the Prohibition and Excise Act, '1995. On 13.02.2025, the Mandat Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar (respondent No.2) issued a notice of forfeiture of the good behaviour bond, directing the petitioner to either pay the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- or show cause within seven days as to why she should not be committed to imprisonment until the expiry of the bond period. Subsequently, on 05 03.2025, the impugned warrant was issued However, the record does not reflect compliance with the procedure outlined under Sectron 141(1xb) of BNSS, 2023, which mandates that fl-,e t t Magistrate must record the grounds and evidence establishing that the person bound by the bond has committed a breach. This statutory requirement implies an independent and reasoned determination by the Ivlagistrate. ln the present case, the complainant's assertion that a crime was registered against the petitioner for possession of illicit liquor does not, in itself, amount to proof of breach of bond. Mere registration of an 4 ,\'71t..,/ lL .l'.,\n. 7618 o/ 20?i FIR by the El<cise Police cannot be construed as a violation of bond conditions without a prior and proper inquiry.

9. For thes;e reasons, as the materials are making out that the issuance of irnpugned warrant is without proper compliance of the prescribed pro:edure, the impugned warrant dated 05 03.2025 stands unsustainable ir the facts and law

10. Resultarrfly, the impugned warrant in Rc. No. Ng4lZOzS dated 05.03.2025 is set aside and the interim order dated 21.03.202s releasing the pertitioner from jail is made absolute. Howsoever, it is made clear that this order shafi not be an impediment for the authority to conduct approp.iate proceedings for defaurt of security by stricfly abiding the procedure ard in accordance with the law.

11. With this observation, this Writ petition is allowed. Pending nriscellaneous appiications. if any, shall stand closed. I To, //rRUE copy, -,q.rtr#?[BiSr.Tl,A i \-iic_rlor.r olrrcin ' I?3",:B:::3l"l""3i$Ei];n?rohibition and Excise\bepartment, .uoo"*,, 2. The Execrrtive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Kodakandla Mandal, Jangaon 3. The Statior Hor .langio;'6i;i.iluse officer, Prohibition and Excise, Excise station parakurthi, ]ant, Sub-Jail Narsampet, Warangal District. tll ANAVENI, Advocare tOpUCJ reransa;;tE;.53L5i.1i+irrroN EXcrsE, Hish court ror the srate or 7. Two CCs tc GF FOR HOME, High court for the state of rerangana at Hvotrld""oii>Jfi yiA rwo cD copes

4. The Superirrtenc 5. One CC to [;Rl 6. Two CCs tc, Gp HIGH COI.'RT DATED: 11110612025 ORDER WP.No.76zl8 of 2025 (,1 U ,.1 A .) /i,! lr\ '.i\'t .\ 1$sEPm I, \\ L-LOWIN(; THE WRIT PETITION, ._ WITHOUT ,COSTS ./3 , ,/'"( /