Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 7553
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
B. Rama Krishna – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/682/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. K.Durga Prasad
For the Respondents: Dr. S.Prashanth
A court must provide reasons for dismissing applications to ensure fairness and just procedure.
Headnote:The court analyzed the law regarding the recall of Non Bailable Warrants, noting the absence of petitioner at court due to travel abroad, as stated in court below's records. The court found no reasons were provided by the lower court for dismissing the recall application. It framed the issue as whether the dismissal without reasoning was lawful. The court ruled that the petitioner must file a fresh application to recall the NBW.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner failed to appear due to being abroad leads to nbw. (Para 3) |
Heard Mr. K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. S.Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
2. Issuance of notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with as the petitioner filed this criminal petition to recall the Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against him.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for both parties, this criminal petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. The facts leading to filing of this criminal petition are that the petitioner (accused) has failed to appear before the court of Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs cases –cum- VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge at Nizamabad (for short ‘the court below’) in connection with SC.Spl.No.23 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 434 , 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act . Therefore, the court below has issued Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application being Crl.M.P.No.409 of 2024 under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. to recall the NBW. However, the said application was dismissed by the court below.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was abroad at the relevant point of time and therefore, he could not appear before the court below. However, the court below, without considering the same and without assigning any reasons dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for recall of NBW, by its order dated 13.06.2024, and the same is contrary to law.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the court below on each and every date of hearing on which his presence is required and that he will cooperate for disposal of the case. If the NBW issued against the petitioner is not recalled, the petitioner will be put to great hardship.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not opposed the above submission.
8. The impugned order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the court below reads as under:
‘Recall petition is hereby dismissed.’
9. From the above, it is clear that the court below has not assigned any reasons while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.
10. In view of the same, the petitioner is permitted to file fresh application seeking recall of NBW within a period of one week and the petitioner shall appear before the court below and file an undertaking to the effect that he shall appear before the court below whenever his presence is physically required.
11. Subject to the above condition and any other condition that may be required to be imposed, the court below shall recall the NBW pending against the petitioner.
12. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
