Pending misceilaneous apprications. if any, shail stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/ v. KAVITHA EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER District. To, 't rhe Executive Magistrate

Judgment

1. 2 3 ...Petitioner Iii"?jil""",J#'?ii%X?3#o:r'bv Pubric Prosecutor, Hish court For rhe stare The Executive Magistrate and rahsirdar, Khanapur Mandar, Nirmar Drstrict. The Station Flouse Officer, prohibition and Excise station, Nirmal, Nirmal District- 4 The Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad

...respondent Petition under section s2g of BNSS, 2o23 prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petrtron, the Hrgh C";;;;y be 21 .03 2025 under section 141 of BNSS on the fire of rhe Executrv" rvrrgistoG & Tahsildar, Khanapur Mandal, Nirmal District. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section #g of BNSS, 2O23 praying that in the circumstances slated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petit-on, the Hrgh cou.t rnlv o. pleased to direct the 4th respondent{he Superintendent, District Jair, Adirabad to forthwith release the petitiofler i.e. Agufla padma, Wile or Agufla Ramesh from the District Jail, Adirabad in reration to proceedings in warrant in MC No At3o3r2o2s. Dated 21 .03-2025 under section 141 or e"Nss on the fire of rhe Executive Magistrate & Tahsirdar, Khanapur Mandar, Nirmar District tifl the disposar of the Ouash Petition in the interest of the lustice. / This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of ^ Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri A,uri Divakar Reddy' Advocate for the petitioner ano sri Jr-thendei Rao ve.ramara Additionar Pubric Prosecutor on beharf of the Respond"" nr".iJ & 4 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the foltowing: ORDER t . j t l j I i I I I I I I I j i i I j I ) I i I ! THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N'TUKARAMJI MIN ALP ETITI ON No. 4277 OF 2025 cRl OROER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 5ft of BharatiYa Nagarik Suraksha quashment of the M.C.No-AJ303/2025' 'BNSS, 2023')' seeking Sanhita, 2023 (for short proceedings against the petitioner in Warrant in 21.03.2025 passed by the Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar' Khanapur Mandal' Nirrnal District' 2. Heard Mr'Alluri Divakar Reddy''learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla' learned Add'rtional Public Prosecutor' representing the respondent No'1-State' ln the impugned proceedings' the petitioner has been committed to 3 prison under a warrant for breach of bond for good behaviour executed under Section 122 (1)(b) of Cr'P'C'' and this Court vlde interim order dated 26.03.2025 released ttre petitioner from the District Jail Adrlabad' forthwith 4 Magistrate/Tahsildar Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive rant in Form-16 for (respondent l'to 2) issued a war the petitioner's committal to prison' citing failure to execute a bond with good behaviour' The petitioner had been directed to suretY for a sum of Rs'2'00'000 l- tot a period of two years Upon the furnish securitY for 2 ,\ 7 R.rr Cr/.P.No. 1277 ol 2025 petitioner,s failure to comply, respondent No.2 treated it as a default and committed the petitioner to imprisonment for 561 days, on the ground that she had failed to provide the requisite security for good behaviour. 5. The learned Additional public prosecutor states that, based on information from the Excise lnspector regarding a breach of bond, the Tahsirdar issued a notice of forfeiture. Thereafter, the impugned warrant was issued and the petitioner was committed to prison for fairure to furnish the bond wth 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 warrant i I I I l 1 6 I have carefully examined the materials on record

7. A close examination of the rmpugned warrant reveals that the Executive Magiskate/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 2,00,0001, as previously directed. Notably, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to exprain or respond before the issuance of the warrant. lt must be emphasized 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 rmpflsonment 3 \1-R,/ (_rl.I,.No. 127 /- 01 202; No 3)

8. The record {urther shows that the warrant of imprisonment was issued on the basis of default in prov'rJing security Ttre communication from the Prohibition and Excise lnspector (complainanVrespondent indicates that the petitioner was found in possession of illicitly distitled liquor outside of her house' A criminal case was registered under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of the Prohibition and Excise Act' 1995 On the same day' ie ' 06'03'2025' the Mandal Executive Magistrate/ Tahsildar (respondent No'2) issued a not'rce of forfeiture of the good behaviour bond, directing the petitioner to either pay the penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- 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 21 03'2025' the impugned warrant was issued' However' the record does not reflect compliance with the procedure outlined under Section 141(1Xb) of BNSS' 2023' which mandates that the 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 Magistrate ln the present case' the complainant's assertion that a crime was registered agatnst the petitioner for possession of illicit liquor does not, in itself' amouflt to proof of breach of bond Mere registration of an FIR by the Excise Police cannot be construed as a violation of bond conditions without a prior and proper inquiry' I 4 N,rR,/ Cr/.P.No. 4277 of 202i

9. For these reasons, as the materials are making out that the rssuance of impugned warrant is without proper compliance of the prescribed procedure, the impugned warrant dated 21.03.2025 stands unsustainable in the facts and law '10. Resultanfly, the impugned warrant in M.C.No.A/303/2025 dated 21'032025 is set aside and the interim order dated 26.03.2025 releasing the petitioner from jail is made absolute. Howsoever, it is made crear that this order shalr not be an impediment for the authority to conduct appropriate proceedings for defaurt of security by stricry abiding the procedure and in accordance with the law.

11. With this observation, this Criminal petition is allowed. Pending misceilaneous apprications. if any, shail stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- V. KAVITHA EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER District. To, 't rhe Executive Magistrate and rahsirdar,, Khanapur Ma*ar, Nirmar District. 2. The Station House Officer, prohibition and Excise station, Nirmal Nirmal 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad 4 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor. High court for the state of rerangana at 5. One CC to SRt ALLURT DIVAKAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT ABK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1010612025 ! ORDER CRLP.No.4277 of 2025 ,,'){:. c cr. 18 IIJE u52 ( ] ) J, ,\ .: o,J .L * CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED L-/' / 1,1 zt,/Y ,/13 I ! I I I I