The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order of the Appellate Court passed in CMP.No21112025, in Crl.Ap.No.146112024 dt.16-07-2025 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills car bomb blast case cum family court cum XXlll Addl. Chief Judge Cum lX Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, only in so far as such condition directing the petitioner for the deposit ol 20o/o of compensation amount awarded by trial court in CC.Nl.No. 161l2O23 ot Vl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that I the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, he High Court may be pleased to stay ther order passed in ClvlP No.21112)2'5 in Crl. Appeal No.146112024, dt.16-07 2025, on the file of the Addl. JtrJ,le for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car bomb blast case - cum- Family court - cun' XXlll Addl. Chief Judge - cum - lX Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, onl/ in so far as the condation directing the petitioner for the deposit ot 20% c' the compensation amount awarded by the trial court in CC.Nl.No.'16'1/2023 of Ju< icial Magistrate of First Class. Hyderabad). This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing lrr: Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing lrr: arguments of Mr. D C MAHABOOB HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Petitioner i;nl Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor (T(: ) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No il The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10206 o12025 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 oI Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to set-aside the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Crl.tM.P.No.211 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.1461 of 2024, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge for Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum- Additional Family Court -cum- XXlll Additional Chief Judge --cum- lX Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

2. Heard Mr. D.C.Mahaboob Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State

3. Though notice is served upon respondent No.2, none appeared before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court has not assigned any reasons for directing the petitioner herein to deposit 2Oo/o of the compensation amount as a condition while suspending the sentence. He further submitted that it is not maqdatory for the First Appellate Court to direct the compensation 2 r1 amount to be deposited and that the petitioner is a retired Government Doctor and is not able to pay such a hu1;er amount and that altogether five cases have been filed against him arrd in all the 5 cases, he is directed to deposit 2O% of the compensation amount and being not able to gather his resources to deposil the same, he therefore prayed to relax the said condition. The c:rLrnsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble l:ir.rpreme court in JAMBOO BHANDARI VS. M P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELoMENT CORPORATION LTD & ORS,,

5. Learned counsel further submitted that a joir 1 memo was forcibly got entered for Rs.93 lakhs and that they got il signed by the petitioner herein for Rs.1,35,00,0001 and that the pe:itroner herein never agreed to pay the said amount and that he is not tiable to pay any amounts to the defacto complainant.

6. Learned Additionar pubric prosecutor has submilt*d that in ail the five cases, the petitioner herein was convicted a rd that the petitioner has also entered into a Memorandum of LJn Cerstanding and undertook to pay Rs.1,35,00,000/_ in installments rrrd that they waited for a considerable period of time but the petitr rrrer has not paid any amounts even after the decree passed by the T "ial Court in 12023 Law suit (SC) 911 \ I 3 the Suits. He further submitted that after judgment of conviction being passed by the Trial Court, he was evading the process bf law and he has also not made the payments. Pursuant to issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant, he was arrested and then he approached the First Appellate Court with a suspension petition in which the impugned orders are passed. He further submitted that the defacto complainant is B0 years old person and is still waiting for the amounts to be paid to him by the petitioner herein' He further submitted that the Trial Court has passed a well reasoned order and hence prayed to uphold the same and dismiss the present petition.

7. Perused the record. The record discloses that there was a suit filed vide O.S.No.25 oI 2021 before the Trial Court based on the promissory notes and the present case was filed under N.l Act. It is also alleged that an MOU was entered by the petitioner with the defacto complainant agreeing to pay Rs.1,35,00,000/- towards full and final settlement and that he paid an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the respondent herein and several dates were stipulated to make the entire payment by 15.1 1.2024. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent, the petitioner failed to pay balance amount of Rs.95,00,0001. However, the fact remains on record that he was convicted in five Nl Act cases including the present one. 4 When the petitioner herein carried the matter in App::al along with a petition to suspend the sentence, the said petition \virs allowed by the First Appellate Court. The petitioner was orderecl tc be released on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.10,000/.,with 2 sureties and he was directed to deposit an amount of 20o/o c' ,;ompensation amount within 30 days. The said orders are dated 16.07.2025. A perusal of the orders of the Trial Court reveals that th,:r letitioner was convicted to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 nronths and to pay compensation of Rs.12,92,5001. 2Ook of th:r said amount comes to Rs.2,58,5001. The grievance expressed by ttre petitioner's counsel is that since he has to pay compensation arrrount in each case, there are altogether 5 cases and he may havr; lo deposit the amount in all cases which the petitioner is not able to rJr:posit.

8. The Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (cited supra) has considered the principle laid down in Surinder Sir gh Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal and others(2019 11 SCC 341) and held at Para 6 as under:- "6. What is held by this Couri is that a purposive interpn t.tion should be made of Section 148 of the N.l Act. Hence, nornally, Appellate Courl will be justified in imposing the conditrctt of deposrl as provided in Section 148. However, in a case wlrcre the Appellate Courl is satisfied that the condition of depo:;;t of 5 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specificalty recorded. ,

9. When an accused applies under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.

10. ln this case, the Trial Court has imposed a condition of deposit of 2Oo/o of the amount as interim compensation and the same was upheld by the High Court but the Apex Court has set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and has restored the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court and directed the parties to appear before roster bench of High Court for adjudication. lt was further held that the High Court, after hearing the parties, will consider whether 2Oo/o of the amount is already deposited or not and if the Court comes to a conclusion lhal 2ooh of the amount is not deposited, the Court will re-examine the revision petitions in the light of the observations made in the judgment.

11. Considering the submissions made by both parties, it is deemed appropriate that the quantum of compensation that is I 6 ordered to be deposited by the First Appellate court is reduced from 20% to 1Oo/o and the petitioner is directed to depr.,5i1 10% of the compensation amount i,e., Rs.1,29,250/- before lh.-, Trial Court within a period of 2 months from the date of this order.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed o1

13. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stitrrd closed SD/- A. PRATHIMA [)E:PUTY REGISTRAR /^, //TRUE COPY// Secrton oFFrcER To,

1. The Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of Ju:ilee Hills car bomb blast case cum family court cum XXlll Addl. Chief .lLtdge Cum lX Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, 2 The Vl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabar: 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of TS at l{,deps6r6. ,Or-, 4 One CC to Mr D C MAHABOOB HUSSAIN, Advocate C,PUCI 5. Two CD Copies o RC/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1110912025 y ORDER CRLP.No.10206 of 2025 1t tiitr lfifr \ Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Disposed of. \