The High Court · 2025

2. Mr.N.Srirama Chowdary,, S/o Veakniah Naidu (Late) Aged B0 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o FIat No.5'1 4,. Krishe Meadows, H. No.B-3-832/K1'to 1 (8, Srinagar oniony, Hyderabad. Rep. by its GPA Holder K.Vijayalaxmi, Wo late Malakonchinh, Aged 54 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o Flat 514, Kiishe Meadows, H.No.B-3-832/K1 to K8, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 Crl IVP.No.213l2O2S, in Crl.Ap. No.146312024 d1.16-O7 -2025 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hiils 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 of 20 percentage of compensation amount awarded by trial court in CC. N1.No.16412023 of Vl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 2 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the ltlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the, High Court may be pleased to stay the appellate court order passed in Crll\4P No.21312025 in Crl.Ap.No.146312024 dt 16-07-2025 on the file of the Additio'al Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills car bomb blast case cum family ':ourt cum XXlll Addl' Chief Judge Cum lX Addl.Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, orrlv in so far as the condition directing the petitioner for the deposit of 20 t)ercentage of the compensation amount awarded by the trial court in CC Ni Nc, 16412023 of Judicial Magistrate of First CIass Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing .he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argrtrrents of Sri D C MAHABOOB HUSSAIN Advocate for the Petitioner anc Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of tlte, Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 O1 73 ot 2025 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.M.P.No.213 o'f 2O2S in Crl.A.No 1463 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 petitioneriaccused 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 20% oI the compensation amount as a condition while suspending the sentence. He further submitted that it is not mahdatory for the First Appellate Court to direct the compensation 2 amount to be deposited and that the petitionr,,r is a retired Government Doctor and is not able to pay such a hr,ge amount and that altogether five cases have been filed against hinr :,nd in all the 5 cases, he is directed to deposit 2Oo/o of the compens,ation amount and being not able to gather his resources to depos t the same, he therefore prayed to relax the said condition. The r,ounsel for the petitioner has reried upon the decision of the Hon'bre riupreme court IN JAMBOO BHANDARI VS. M P STATE INDUSTRIAI. DEVELOMENT CORPORATION LTD & ORSl.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that a joirrl memo was forcibly got entered for Rs.93 lakhs and that they got i: signed by the petitioner herein for Rs.1,35,00,000/_ and that the pertilioner herein never agreed to pay the said amount and that he is n<:t liable to pay any amounts to the defacto complainant. 6' Learned Additionar pubric prosecutor has submirte:d that in a, the five cases, the petitioner herein was convicted and that the petitioner has also entered into a Memorandum of Ltnrjerstanding and undertook to pay Rs.1,35,00,000/_ in installments irrd that they waited for a considerabre period of time but the petiti:rner has not paid any amounts even after the decree passed by the -rial Court in 12023 Law Suit (SC) 911 ) the Suits. He further submitted that after judgment of conviction being passed by the Trial Court, he was evading the process of 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 Appellale Court with a suspension petition in which the impugned orders are passed. He further submitted that the defacto complainant is 80 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.2 5 of 2O2l before the Trial Court based on the promissory notes and the present case was filed under N.l Act. lt is also alleged that an [VIOU 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.40,00,0001 to the respondent herein and several dates were stipulated to make the entire payment by 15.11.2024. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent, the petitioner failed to pay balance amount of Rs.95,00,000/-. However, the fact remains on record that hij was convicted in five Nl Act cases including the present one. *=- \ 4 When the petitioner herein carried the matter in Appr:erl along with a petition to suspend the sentence, the said petition ,vas allowed by the First Appellate Court. The petitioner was orderer: to be released on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.10,000/- lvith 2 sureties and he was directed to deposit an amount of 2Oo/o of :ompensation amount within 30 days. The said orders are dated 16.07.2025. A perusal of the orders of the Trial Court reveals that thr> petitioner was convicted to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6i r^ronths and to pay compensation of Rs.19,38,7501. 2Oo/o of th: said amount comes to Rs.3,87,7501. The grievance expressed bv t,re petitioner's counsel is that since he has to pay Rs.3,B7 /50/- towards compensation amount in each case, there are alto,Jether 5 cases and he may have to deposit Rs.'1 9,38,750/- in all c'ases which the petitioner is not able to deposit.

8. The Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (citt:r: supr6; 6r. considered the principle laid down in Surinder Sirrgh Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal and others(2O19 11 SCC 341) anr: lteld at Para 6 as under:- "6- What is helcl by this Couri is that a purposive interpr)t'?tion should be made of Section 148 of the N.l Act. Hence, nct'ntally, Appellate Coutt will be justified in imposing the condi'i:n of - 5 deposrt as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Cout is satisFied that the condition of deposit of 20%o will be unjust or imposing such a condition wilt amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can . be made for the reasons specifically 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 20% 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 lhat 2Qo/o of the amount is not deposited, the Court will re-examine the revision petitions in the light of the observations made in the judgment. \_ , / 6 \=i 11 Considering the submissions made b), both parties, it deemed appropriate that the quantum of cr. nrpensation ordered to be deposited by the First Appellate crrurt is reduc 2Oo/o to 1O%o and the petitioner is directed to ieposit 10% compensation amount i.e., Rs.1,93,875/_ befo.: the Trial within a period of 2 months from the date of this c r:er. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposercr of. l3 Misceflaneous petitions pending, if any, sha s;tand crosed that is ed from of the Court \ T o //TRUE COPYII ".r'r?itE8f.r+ilXA ,A $ ECTION OFFICER :ilH#iffi ,,%ll"Jifl ,T,*:iJ,iiI,,,,iiili"e?.:,",..J ;itr;,lrjiffi iE*i{,trHsB.r#:f{{1.,.,,;;*ifr[..",*,,1ffi ,0,";;" 1'PK/PS 0 HIGH COURT DATED:1110912025 I i I ,/./ .) 15 t r ?$?i ORDER CRLP.No.10173 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSEI] OF p