The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR No. 460 of 2025 Jubilee Hills PS, Hyderabad City and to quash the same in so far as the Petitioner is concerned LA. NO:2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the Petitioner herein in relation to FIR No. 460 ot 2025 registered by the Jubilee Hills PS, Hyderabad City pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lr,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sirgapoor Sahil Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. '1 . and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA Dt VI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.'l'1714 of 2 025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-r;cused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.460 of 2U. 5 on the file of Jubilee Hills Police station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 125, 110, 281, 54 of BNS and 184 and ,85(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act') and 3 of : -evention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'PDPP r\ :t')

2. Heard Sri Sirgapoor Sahil Reddy, learned cr> rnsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned c: tnsel for the respondent No.1-State 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has subr i ted that the petitioner herein is accused No.4 and that he was tre velling as a passenger in the car and he cannot be alleged to have j iven the car in a rash and negligent manner and thus, the offe nces under Sections 54, 110, 281 , 125 of BNS and Section 3 of flr > PDPP Act and Section 184 of and 185(a) of tVlV Act are not r r aintainable against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that t re petitioner is arrayed as an accused, based on the confession of the co- accusqd, which cannot be relied upon. Since the petit c ner has not ') ETD,J Crt.P. No.1171't of 2025 committed any such offence, continuation of proceedings against him would be an abuse of process of law. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution could make out during the course of investigation that the petitioner and the other accused were travelling in the car in a drunken condition and were encouraging accused No"1 , who was also under the impact of alcohol, to drive the car at high speed' Being instigated on their encouragement, accused No l has driven the car in a rash and negligent manner and committed the accident, wherein the car went and colluded with the GHtvlc foot path cement poles, as a result, several cement poles were damaged' He further submitted that the breath analyzer test was also conducted on the petitioner and the prosecution has collected ample material and that the investigation is still in progress and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisioninDeepakbhaiJagdishchandraPatelv.StateofGujarat l ETO,J c4 P. No-l1711012025 and anotherl, contending that the confession of co-ztr cused has to be regarded as amounting to no evidence in a gener: way. lt was held in the said case that "tfre fact remains that it is not ev c :nce as defined under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The result therefore is tha. n dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot start with th 3 confession of a co-accused person. ln criminal cases, where the other evidence rdduced against an accused person is wholly unsatisfactory and the prosecutior ;eeks to rely on the confession of a co-accused, the presumption of innocence tv lich is the basis of criminal Jurisprudence assists the accused person and cong 3ls the cou rt to render the verdict that the charge is not proved against him an(l ;o he is entitled to the benefits of doubt". The said observation is made in i n appeal, but the present case is still under investigation. Therefore :he said case law is not applicable to the present.

7. The recitals of the charge sheet point out that the petitioner herein and the other accused were going in a car tr raring No.TG OBH 1134 and all of them were in drunken condition z nd under the influence of alcohol, they were encouraging accused \o.1 to drive the car at a high speed, as a result of which the car we rt and hit the GHTMC footpath and several cement poles w€t 3 damaged. Therefore, prima facie the allegations point out the ;aid offences against the petitioner. lt is fu(her pointed out in the c cmplaint that (2019) 16 SCC 547 .+ ETD'J cd,P-No 11711012025 the breath analyzer test was also conducted on the petitioner and other accused to ascertain the impact of aicohol Hence, it is not proper to interfere with the investigation process at this stage and the petition is liable to be dismissed

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed It/iscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed' SD/- P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The XVll Additional Chief Judicial tr,4agistrate' at Nampally. 2. The Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri. Sirgapoor Sahil Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies PI\,4/SA Hr HIGH COURT DATED:1 011112025 ORDER CRLP.No.11714 of 2025 \/ i I tri; m6 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 3 coP?Aq-- 6d(r'