M.M.A.Baig Vs The State

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IVONDAY.THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11s2 OF 2022 l'
Between:
M.M.A.Baig, S/o M.K.Baig. Aged 40yrs, Occ.Business, Rl/o H.No.20-2-357, Hussaini-
alam,Hyderabad.
.PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 AND
1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.
2. Smt A.Krishnaveni, W/o A.Chandera Kumar, Aged about4T years, Occ.Bank employee R/o.'1 1-5-5'18, Red Hills,Hyderabad.
...RESPONOENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in I the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated 20.01.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 158 ot 2022, in Spl S.C.No. 27 of 2012,on the file of the Honble Vl i,4etropolitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad and consequently recall the Non Bailable Warrant issued on 28.10.2022.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, theiHigh Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Spi S.C.No.27 of 2012, on the file of the Vl Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAMESH BOMMIDENI, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG/) on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
ri%
T IE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN (
CRIMINAL PETITION No.l152 of 2O2!

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

2. The p :titioner herein is A I in Special S.C.No.27 of 2012. The offencer alleged against the petitioner herein are under Section 3 (1) (x) of t re Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 'lribes (Prevention of Atrocitie: t Act, 1989. Non-Bailbale Warant u,as issued against the petitior er herein. Thereforc, he has filed a petition under Section 70 2) Cr.P,C., vide Crl.M.P.No.158 ol 2022 in the absence of the peti ,oner herein. Vide impugned order, Court below has dismissed the said application on the ground that the said application under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C., seeking recall of NBW cannot be ecalled in the absence of the accused. In fact, the said finding of t -re Court below is contrary to the principle of this Court and also ]re Hon'ble Apex Court. In certain circumstances, applicatior under Section 70 l2l Cr.P.C., can be filed seeking recall of NBW in the absence of the Accused explaining the reasons for the said al sence, whereas in the present case, according to Ieamed counsel, t re petitioner is suffering rvith severe backache and he will file fr, sh application under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C., seeking ro recall NB\ / issued against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fur her submit that the petitioner would cooperate u,ith the trial Cour t in concluding the investigation in Special S.C.No.27 of 2012.

3. Considering the said submission and also in view of the above stated facts, this Criminal petition is disposed of granting II liberry to the perir.ioner herein/A1 in Special S.C.No.27 of 2Ol2 to II nle a fresh application under Section 70 (2) Cr.p.C., by appearing II before rhe Court below seeking recall of NBW issued against him.

I l. On filing such application, the learned Special Judge for Scheduled II Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of AtrociLies) Act _ cum _

II VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, is directed to consider the I | "aid applicar-ion and recall the NBW issued against him on I I imposition of certain conditions to its satisfaction. However, the I I petitioner herein shall cooperate with the trial Court in concluding II trial and proceedings against him in Special S.C.No.27 ot 2012.

II The saicl Special Sessions Case is of the year 2012. Therefore, the II trial Court is dirccted to dispose of the said Sessions Case in I | .ccordance with law rvithin a period of three months from the date I receipr of copv of this ordcr.

"f I | ,iscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal I I ".-- etition, shall stand closed.

I _-- SD/-K.AMMAJI ,/

| - ASSTSTANT REGTSTRAR /

E---

| coPY// ,/rRUE I sEcroN oFFrcER II ro.

I f.

! The Court of Vl Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad.

I Z. The Court of Special Judge for Triual of Offences under S.C.s and S.T.s (POA) Act cum- Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

I ,.

The Court of Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,Hyderbad.

O. The Station House Otficer,Nampally P.S.,Red Hills, Hyderbad.

I | 5.