The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased' to reduce the surety amount from Rs.1,50,000/- two sureties to Rs.10,000/- two sureties granted in Crl.M.P. No.2226 of 2O25 in CC.NI-No. 3595 ol 2025, on the file V. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoran.ian Complex, Gandhi Bhavan Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crl.M.P. No. 2226 ot 2O25 in CC.NI No. 3595 of 2025 the file of V. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mukkera Sahithi Sri Kavya, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1-State and None appeared for Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17680 ot 2025 Date:30.12.2025 Between: Chithavaduta Rukmangada Babu And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ORDER: .. . Petitioner/Sole Accused Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-sole accused seeking 1:o reduce the quantum of surety amount imposed by the learned \/ Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderaba d, vide docket order derted 25.11.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.2226 0f 2025 in CC.NI. No.3595 of 2025, a petition filed under Section 7O(2) of Cr.P.C

2. Heard Ms. Sahithi Sri Kavya Mukkera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not served with any summons and thus, he could not \i i ; I i I I t 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.17680 of 2025 appear on the first date of hearing before the trial court and NBW was issued against the petitioner, on which the petitioner has approached the trial court by filing a petition under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., and that the trial court has allowed the petition on certain conditions that the petitioner has to execute a personal bond of Rs.1,50,0001 with two sureties for the like sum each on or before

24.12.2025. She further submitted that the petitioner has no means to pay such a huge amount and that he is already facing the proceedings in the case under Negotiable lnstruments Act and therefore, she prayed to modify the said condition by reducing the quantum of amount.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the summons case, sureties cannot be imposed and relied upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.16005 of 2025

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner herein is the accused in CC No.3595 of

2025. The impugned docket order passed by the trial court discloses that when the case was posted for the first time, the petitioner could not appear as he did not receive the summons in the d-4 '*4 ,:/ 3 ETD,J Ctl.P. No-17680 ol 2025 said case, as such, the trial court issued NBW against the petitioner and hence, he filed the impugned application. While recalling the NBW vlde, order dated 25 11.2025, the trial court imposed a condition directing the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,50,000/- along with two sureties for the like sum each on or before 24.122025. The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioner io modify the said condition by reducing the surety amount.

7. Ihe petitioner could not appear as he has not received the summons and so issuance of NBW is not just and proper. The trial court alsc, has observed the same and considered the reason to be bonafide and cancelled the NBW. But, at the same time, the trial court we'lt ahead in directing the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of lts 1,50,000/- along with two sureties for the like sum on or betorc 2tr.12.2025.

8. ln Crl.P. No.16005 ot 2025, which was filed challenging a similar order, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has discussed the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Subhash Atmaram Sharma v. Stater of Maharashtra [2015 SCC OnLine BOM 4208] and Kamaks;hi Forex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Lorencio Rebello [Crl.W.P. No.1 1 of 2023 dated 28.02.20231and held that: 4 ETD,J Crl.P. No.,7680 of 2025 "7' rn Subhash Atmaram sharma v- State of Maharashtra [20{5 scc onLine BoM 42081, the High court of Bombay raid down the principle that in prosecutions under section 13g of the Negotiabre lnstruments Act, the execution of a surety bond is not invariabry required, and that where the accused consistenfly attends the proceedings, their presence can be adequatery secured by a personar bond, with a surety bond being warranted only when there is a demonstrated tendency to remain absent without reasonabre cause.

8. rt is arso rerevant to mention that in Kamakshi Forex pvt. Ltd. & ors. v. Lorencio Rebeilo (criminar writ petition No.11 of 2023 dated 28.02 .2023), the High court of Bombay has reiterated that the Magistrate must not insist on surety when the accused has been regularly present and no risk of absconding is shown.,, 9. considering the said principles, the learned single Judge has disposed of crl.p. No.16005 of 2o2s by directing the petitioner therein to execute a personal bond and the order of the trial court with regard to the sureties was set aside.

10. considering the material on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the above cited decisions, it is observed that the trial court cannot direct for the sureties to be submitted along with the personal bond. Therefore, the order dated 2s.11.202s passed by the trial court needs to be modified.

11. ln the resutt, the criminal petition is disposed of modifying the order dated 2s.11.202s passed by the V Judicial Magistrate of ) 5 ETD,J Crl.P. No.17680 of 2025 First Class, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P. No.2226 of 2025 in CC.NI. No.3595 of 2025 to the extent that the condition of furnishing two sureties is r;et aside. However, the petitioner is directed to furnish personal bond for Rs.1,50,000/- only, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. N/lisc,:llaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- V.HARIPRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6;: SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Bhavan, Hyderabad.

1. The v. Judicial Magistrate of first class, Manoranjan complex, Gandhi 2. The station House officer, Khairatabad police station, Khairatabad, 3. Two ccs; to Publig Prosecutor, High court for the stat6 oi reiingin'a, at 4- one cc to sri. Mukkera sahithi sri Kavya, Advocate topucl 5. Two CD Copies Hyderab,ad [OUTI GNK/PSL fu,_ / / HIGH COURT DATED :3011212025 TA I 3 06 ttB 202[ * 'lr ORDER CRLP.No.17680 of 2025 I DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION --Jres pql,l16 { .: I I