The High Court · 2025

Business, R/o Flat No.514, Krishe Meadows, H.No.8-3-8321K1 toK8, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad. Rep. by its GPA Holder K.Vijayalaxmi, Wo late Malakondaiah, Aged 54 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o Flat 5'14, Krishe Meadows, H.No.8-3-832/K1 to KB, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/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 Honourable appellate court passed in CMP.No.210/2025, in Crl.Ap.No 146012024 d1.16-07-2025 on the file of the Honourable 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 of 20 percentage of compensation amount awarded by trial court in CC.Nl.No.163/2023 of Yl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay the order passed in CMP No.21012025 in Crl.Appeal in Crl.Appeal No.146012024, d1.16-07-2025, on the file of Honourable 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 the condition directing the petitioner for the depos it of 20% c;f the compensation amount awarded by the triar court in cc Nr.No'16312023 0f .,.,li"Lr r,rrrJi]irrt" or First Class, Hyderabad, pending disposal oi tn" qrr.n putitior. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing 1ro lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing. the argur ents of Sri D C MAHABOOB HUSSAIN ,AdVOCAtE fOr thE PEtitiOLr ANA SF, JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional public prosecutor for the Respc,rdent No.1 and of SRI J ASHVINI KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10150 of 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.21O of 2025 in CrlA.No.1460 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 mandatory for the First Appellate Court to direct the compensation 2 \ -:1 - amount to be deposited and that the petition:r is a retired Government Doctor and is not able to pay such a h tr;e amount and that altogether five cases have been filed against hinr and in all the 5 cases, he is directed to deposit 20% of the compr,,nsation amount and being not able to gather his resources to depor;il the same, he therefore prayed to rerax the said condition. The c;runser for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'brer l:;upreme court in JAMBoo BHANDARI VS. M P STATE INDUSTRII.L DEVELoMENT CORPORATION LTD & ORS1.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that a j<:i" t memo was forcibly got entered for Rs.93 lakhs and that they got it signed by the petitioner herein for Rs.1,35,00,000/- and that the per:itioner herein never agreed to pay the said amount and that he is r ot liable to pay any amounts to the defacto complainant.

6. Learned Additionar pubric prosecutor has subnrilted that in a[ the five cases, the petitioner herein was convicter:; and that the petitioner has also entered into a N/emorandum of 1.., nderstanding and undertook to pay Rs.1,35,00,000i- in installment:; :nd that they waited for a considerabre period of time but the per,tirner has not paid any amounts even after the decree passed by thr: Trial Court in 12023 Law surt (SC) 911 j 3 the Suits. He fu(her 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 Appellate 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 dlscloses that there was a suit filed vide O.S.No.2S of 2021 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 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 15.11.2024. 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 he was convicted in five Nl Act cases including the present one. 4 When the petitioner herein carried the matter in App:irl along with a petition lo suspend the sentence, the said petition ,vas allowed by the First Appellate Court. The petitioner was ordere:t 'o be released on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.10,000r.,^/ith 2 sureties and he was directed to deposit an amount of 2Oo/o (:f compensation amount within 30 days. The said orders are dated 16.07.2025. A perusal of the orders of the Trial Court reveals that th -' petitioner was convicted to undergo imprisonment for a period of ii rnonths and to pay compensation of Rs.19,38,750/-. 20% of th: said amount comes to Rs.3,87,7501. The grievance expressed bv tre petitioner's counsel is that since he has to pay Rs.3,87 i50l towards compensation amount in each case, there are altor;ether 5 cases and he may have to deposit Rs.'l 9,38,750/- in all c;ls;es which the petitioner is not able to deposit. 8 The Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (cit,:r(r supra) has considered the principle laid down in Surinder Sirrgh Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal and others(2O19 11 SCC 341) and treld at Para 6 as under:- "6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.l Act. Hence, notr a y, Appellate Courl will be justified in imposing the condit.,ol of 5 deposrl as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Couri is sat/sfled that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appeltant, exception can ' be made for the reasons specificalty recorded. ,

9. When an accused applies under Section 3g9 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 20o/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 20% of the amount is already deposited or not and if the Court comes to a conclusion lhat 2Oo/o ot the amount is not deposited, the Court will re-examine the revision petitions in the light of the observations made in the judgment, I I 6

11. Considering the submissions made by bol.r parties, it is deemed appropriate that the quantum of compern';ation that is ordered to be deposited by the First Appellate Court is reduced from 2Oo/o lo 10% and the petitioner is directed to dep:r::it 10% of the compensation amount i.e., Rs.1 ,93,8751- 5"1e1s rhe Trial Court within a period of 12 months from the date of this order

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of

13. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall sta'rd closed. SD/- A.PRATHIMA PUTY REGISTRAR r)E n; //TRUE COPY// sibrron oFFtcER \ I To,

1. The Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee t-lills car bomb blast case cu.m family court cum XXlll Addl Chief Judge Cr_ r., lX Addl.Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRI D C MAHABOOB HUSSATN Advocate [()t,UC] 3. One CC to SRI J r\SHVlNl KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBL,IC PROSECUTOR, High Court for thr: fitate of Tetangana, at Hyderabad. [OtJT]

5. Two CD Copies GR/PS G HIGH COURT DATED:1 110912025 I tA i-1( 15 [tr 7gg \.: \.1 I

4.,, ORDER CRLP.No.10150 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION .r I