The High Court · 2025

The state of Telanoana Rep. by public prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad, Telangana. ...Respondent Mr.N Srirama Chowdarv S/o. Venkaiah Naidu (Late) Aged g0 yrs, Occ. Business. R/o Frat No 5i4, kiirnl-lrrilJo*!,"ni.ir")'ari'-as2iK1 to KS.srinaoar corony, Hyderabad. Reo by irs- GFA"-i"ii"i "x]vuivir'"'riri,."r,Vl" ,iXt Hij3ir1T35?ii,glr?i,H:ri,'S",B,l;,1r"r..',Iiipilizi-r;i;ii;M;;"ft: ...RespondenUComplainant Petition under Section 52g of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pieased to quash the order of the Appellate Court, dl.16-07-2025 tn cMp No.212/2025' in crr'Ap No.1462r2024, on the fire of the Additionar Judge for the triar of Jubiree Hirs car bomb brast case cum family court cum XXrl Addr chief Judge cum rX Addr' sessions Judge, Hyderabad, onry in so far as such condition directrng the petitioner for the deposit of 20% ofcompensation amount in ccNr'No72e0t2022 or Judiciar Masisrrate or Firsr :::$'rjJJ:.court I.A. NO:'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 529 of BNSS Act, praying ritt in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petrt I r, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order Fassed in cMp No 2 2t2025 in crl. Appeat No.146212024, dl 16-07'2025, on the file of Addl. Judg, .er the trial of Jubilee Hills Car bomb blasl case - cum- Family court _ cum _ X., I I Addl. Chief Judge _ cum - lX Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, only in s far as the condition directing the petitioner for the deposit of 20o/o of the c mpensation amount awarded by the trial court in CC Nl.No 729012022 of Judi, ,zrl Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad). This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing trre Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing rlre arguments of Mr. D C MAHABOOB HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Petitioner I rd Mr' JITHENDER RAO VEERAIVIALLA, the Additronal Public Prosecutor on e half of respondent No. and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA .' CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.10'175 of 2025 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.212 oI 2025 in Crl.A.No.1462 ot 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 20oh oI the compensation amount as a condition while suspending the sentence. He further submitted that it is not maodalory for the First Appellate Court to direct the compensation \ 2 amount to be deposited and that the petitior e r is a retired Government Doctor and is not able to pay such a I uge amount and that altogether frve cases have been filed against hi,n and in all the 5 cases, he is directed to deposit 20ok of the comt :nsation amount and being not able to gather his resources to depcs t the same, he therefore prayed to relax the said condition. The r;ounsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'bl, Supreme Court in JAMBoo BHANDARI VS. M P STATE INDUSTRI/\I DEVELoMENT CORPORATION LTD & ORS1.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that a . rint memo was forcibly got entered for Rs.93 lakhs and that they gc it signed by the petitioner herein for Rs.1,35,00,0001 and that the rrditioner herein never agreed to pay the said amount and that he is ,rtt liable to pay any amounts to the defacto complainant.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has sub nitted that in all the five cases, the petitioner herein was convick:C and that the petitioner has also entered into a Memorandum o, Jnderstanding and undertook to pay Rs.1 ,35,00,000/- in installmer s and that they waited for a considerable period of time but the pr,ti :ioner has not paid any amounts even after the decree passed by t.,e Trial Court in I 2023 Law Suit (SC) 911 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.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 .---"1 When the petitioner herein carried the matter in Ap1 eal along with a petition to suspend the sentence, the said petition u,as allowed by the First Appellate Court. The petitioner was ordere i to 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 2Oo/o f compensation amount within 30 days. The said orders are datec '6.07-2025. A perusal of the orders of the Trial Court reveals that tire petitioner was convicted to undergo imprisonment for a period of ( rnonths and to pay compensation of Rs.13,07,500/-. 2Oo/o of tl: said amount comes to Rs.2,61 ,500/-. The grievance expressed b, the petitioner's counsel is that since he has to pay compensation rrrount in each case, there are altogether 5 cases and he may hav,, to deposit the said amounts in all cases which the petitioner is not a rle to deposit. B. The Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (cit.c supra) has considered the principle laid down in Surinder Sirrllh Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal and others(2019 11 SCC 341)anr: lreld at Para 6 as under:- "6. Whal is held by this Court is that a purposive interpr 'lation should be made of Section 148 of the N.l Act. Hence, no r ally, Appe ate Court will be justified in imposing the condi-c't of depos as provided in Section 148. However, in a case v,tere the Appellate Court rs saflsfled that the condition of dep.,st of ,' e-j2 5 I I 20% will be uniust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appettant' exception can be made for the reasons sp ecificalty 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 ol the amount is already deposited or not and if the Court comes to a conclusion that 20% 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 6 l ordered to be deposited by the First Appellate Cou,t is reduced from 2Oo/o to 10% and the petitioner is directed to de:rc,sit 10% of the compensation amount i.e.,Rs.'l ,30,750/- before the f -ial Court within a period of 2 months from the date of this order. 12 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed rl

13. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall :.t:rnd closed !iD/. L.LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// decrron oFFlcER To, t The Additional Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills ;irr bomb blast case cum family court cum Xxlll Addl. Chief Judge Ct r lX Addl Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,

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

3. One CC to Mr. D C MAHABOOB HUSSAIN, Advoca I [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies D RC/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1110912025 i4 c[r 2U[ \ -:. l\ / ORDER CRLP.No.10175 of 2025 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Disposed of. (.)