The High Court · 2025

3. Sri S. Govinda Naidu/SI/RPF/SC, Secunderabad,, Rep by its Central Govt. Standing Council, High court at Hyderabad ...Respondents/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the I\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in C.C. No. 484 of 2023 in FIR No.282 of 2022, on the file of ll tVletropolitan Magistrate for Railways, at Secunderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.11 in C.C. No. 484 of 2023 in FIR No.282 ot 2022, on the file of ll lVetropolitan Magistrate for Railways at Secunderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr Abhinandan Reddy, Counsel representing Sri Chinthala Anjaneyulu ,Advocate for the Petitioner and [\r1r N Avaneesh, Standing Counsel representing Sri N Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia for the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THt, HONOIIRABI-E SRI .ITISTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRINIINz\L PETI]'ION No.l6l74 of 2025 Date:08.12.2025 Iletrveen Enugula Akash Chandra AND Union of India, rep by Indian Railway, Ministry of Railrvays, Nerv Delhi and two others ... Pe tit.ioner ...Respondents 0rder fhis Crirninal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proccedings in C.C.No.484 of 2023, on the iile of the [I Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways at Secunderabad. wherein the petitioner was arraved as accused No. I I , registered fbr the off'ences under Sections 147,145(b), 145(c), 146 and 174(a) ofRailways Act, 1989.

2. l{eard Mr.Abhinandan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Chinthala Anjaneyulu, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Avaneesl-r, Iearned Standing Counsel representing Sri N.Rhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents. 2

3. The casc of the prosecution is that on 11 .06.2022, the unemployed youth and army job aspirants, organized 'Rai[ Roko Agitation' at Sccunderabad Railrvay Station with a dcmand to cancel the "Agnipath Scheme" launched by the Central Government for shoft service rccruitment in the lndian Anny; that about 1000 to 1500 youth by carrying flags, banners and rods entered into Secundelabad Railway Station b1,' track and by over-throwing the gate-duty bandobusth staff, ohstmcting railway employees discharging tlrcir dutics; that the 1,outh shouted slogans against the Central Govenrrncnt Policies, ransacked and damaged huge quantity of railway propefty including passenger amenities, CCTV carneras, burnt the coaches. pelted stones orr railrvay machinery/equipnrent, including Engines and police personnel/RPlr on duty and broke all the coach windorvs of trains which were stationed on platforms; that the agitators did not obey the instructions given by the police and RPF, continued to pelt the stones; and that as a precautionary measure in saving the lives of the passengers and safe guarding the railway property, all the trains were cancelled. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registered against the petitioner for the offences puryshable under Sections 147, 145(b), 145(c), 146 and 174(a) of Railrvays Act 3

4. [,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not cornmitted any ollence as alleged in the complaint and he rvas t-alsely implicated in the present case. The respondent-police have conducled investigation in a haphazard manner and without verifying as to u,ho took part in the alleged'Rail Roko Agitation', arravccl the pt'tiLiorrer hcrein as accused in the present case. He further submitted that there are no specilic allegations against the petitioncr herein and that he was only a member of the whats-app group of'arrny job aspirants. He lurther submitted that he was not present at 1l.re Secunderabad Railway Station on the date of alleged incident. He lurther submitted that he was made accused solelv on the conlessional statement given by co-accused, which is abuse ol procl'ss ol Iaw. this is causing hardship to the petitioner and spoiling his bright employment prospects. He lurther subrnitted that the subject matter is squarely covered by the order, dated 07.1 1.2025. passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.14395 of 2025, and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner herein. -5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents submitted that whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be ::4:: decided in full-flcdged trial. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the subrnissions rnade b1, the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is a suspected agitator in the 'Rail Itoko Agitation' and he was falsely implicated in the case basing on the conlessional statement made by a co-accused made to the police olllcer and under Section 25 ol the Indian E,vidence Act prohibits the use of confessions made by an co-accused to a police ofJlcer in order to implicate a person as an accused in a crirninal trial. Similar rnatter has been disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.14395 ol 2025, dated 07. t 1.2025, rvherein the proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed by relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Stale of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalt and the order, dated 04.06.2024, passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.921 of 2024, opining that the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of rvhich no prudent person can ever reach to ajust conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner therein. 1 1992 supp(L-)'scc 335 5 Applying the same analogv. this Court is also of the opinion that the proceedings in the present C.C. deserve to be quashed. l. llence, the proceeclings in C.C.No.484 of 2023 on the lllc ol lcamed II Metropolitan Nlagistrate ficr Railways at Secunderabad, are hereby quashetl against tt-re petitioner herein.

8. .Accordinglv. the Crinrinal Petition is allowed. Misccllaneous applications, pending ilany, shall stand closed. Sd/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways' at Secunderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Chinthala Anjaneyulu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies TlSrSa o HIGH COURT DATED:0811212025 HE S14 ( 1 1 [[8 2|126 ;l 7 C) * o ..:..'', !/' J. ORDER CRLP.No.16174 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION t1 ,,\ )r rcS