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, dt.16-07 -2025 in CMP.No21412025, in Crl Ap.No.'146412024 dt.16-07-2025 on the fite 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 of 20 percent of compensation amount awarded by trial court in CC.Nl.No. 162/2023 of Vl Judicial lr/agistrate of First Class, Hyderabad. l.A NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying thr t in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petitio r. the High court may be pleased to stay the order passed in CMp, No.214,2025 in Crl. Appeal No.146412024, dt.16-07-2025, on the file of Addl. .Judge cr the triar of Jubilee Hills car bomb blasi case - cum- Famiry court - cum - x.,lilr Addr. chief Judge cum -. lX Addl sessions Judge, Hyderabad, onry in so 1ar as the condition directing the petitioner for the deposit of 2oro of the r ompensation amount awarded by the triar court in cc.Nr.No 'r 6212023 oI Judic ar Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad). This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing t1e arguments of Mr. D C MAHABOOB HUSSAI, AdVOCAIC fOr thE PEtitiONEr ANd Mr. JITHENDER RAo vEERAI'IALLA, the Additionar pubric prosecutor on b:harf of 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 P ETITION No.10174 of 2025 z ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to set-aside the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.p.No.214 of 2O2S in Crl.A.No.1464 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 \ amount to be deposited and that the petition€ 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 him e nd in all the 5 cases, he is directed to deposit 2Oo/o of the comperrs,ation amount and being not able to gather his resources to depos t the same, he therefore prayed to relax the said condition. The < o unsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon,ble jupreme Court in JAMBoo BHANDARI VS. M P STATE INDUSTRIAI. DEVELoMENT CORPORATION LTD & ORS1.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that a joi rl memo was forcibly got entered for Rs.93 lakhs and that they got i l;igned by the petitioner herein for Rs-1,35,00,000r- and that the pe titioner herein never agreed to pay the said amount and that he is nrrt liable to pay any amounts to the defacto complainant. 6' Learned Additionar pubric prosecutor has subm tted that in a, the five cases, the petitioner herein was convicted ; nd that the petitioner has arso entered into a Memorandum of t Jrrderstanding and undertook to pay Rs.1,35,00,000/_ in installments and that they waited for a considerable period of time but the petit oner has not paid any amounts even after the decree passed by the Triar court in 12023 Law Suit (sc) 911 ) J 3 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 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 discloses that there was a suit filed vide O.S,No.25 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 leamed 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 -a:- \.J When the petitioner herein carried the matter in Ap real along with a petition to suspend the sentence, the said petition rvas ailowed by the First Appellate court. The petitioner was ordere d to be released on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs..10,00C,_ with 2 sureties and he was directed to deposit an amount of 2Ook r1 compensation amount within 30 days. The said orders are datec 16.0Z.2025. A perusal of the orders of the Trial Court reveals that t,e petitioner was convicted to undergo imprisonment for a period of ,) months to pay compensation of Rs.13,00,0O01-. 20% of the said arount comes to Rs.2,60,000/-. The grievance expressed by the pet tioner's counsel is that since he has to pay compensation amount in r ach case, there are altogether 5 cases and he may have to deposit tt e said amounts in all cases which the petitioner is not able to deposit

8. The Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (cit;rl supra) has considered the principle laid down in Surinder Sin,7h Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal and others(2O19 11 SCC 341) anr, reld at para 6 as under:- "6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interp )t?tion should be made of Section 148 of the N.l Act. Hence, no .ntalty, Appellate Coutl will be justified in imposing the condi icn ot deposit as provided in Section 14g. However, in a case nere the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of dep )!;it 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 specificatty recorded. , I 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 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 2Ooh of the amount is already deposited or not and if the Court comes to a conclusion that 20Yo o'f 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- 6 ordered to be deposited by the First Appellate Courl i:; reduced from 2Ook lo lOoh and the petitioner is directed to depr:;it 10% of the compensation amount i.e., Rs.1,30,000/_ before ilre Trial Court within a period of 2 months from the date of this orde_ Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed c f Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall srand closed S,E)/. L.LAKSHMI BABU CIEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEcTIoN oFFIcER 12 13 To,

1. The Additional SessionsJudgeforthetrial of Jub e eHillscarbomb blast.case.cum family court cum XXlllAddl Chief Judge Cum lX Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,

2. fwo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the f tirte of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Mr. D C MAHABOOB HUSSATN Advocat€ 4. Two CD Copies + RC]/PS tlpuCl HIGH COURT DATED: 1110912025 .z: .. - 'i 4 utT 2125 ,1,.-.,- -.. ,.... \\ ''- \1 \ \ ORDER CRLP.No.10174 of 2025 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is [tisposed of' ",i \L\