IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16917 of 2025

Date: 17.12.2025

Between:

Mohd Abdul Samad

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by

the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.5910 of 2025 in C.C. No.18651 of 2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner

seeking recall of the NBW issued against him was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr.Nouman, learned counsel representing Mr.Shaik Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent

No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in C.C.No.18651 of 2019 and NBW was issued against him on 13.11.2024. The petitioner, along with the other accused, filed an application vide Crl.M.P.No.5910 of 2025 seeking recall of the NBW. In the said application, it was specifically stated that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were bedridden and the petitioner was attending to them and due to miscommunication with his counsel, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on the said date. Due to same, NBW was issued to the petitioner. The trial Court, without properly considering the reasons assigned in the application, dismissed the application insofar as the petitioner is concerned, while allowing the same in favour of accused Nos. 2 and 3. He further submitted that the petitioner is willing to appear before the trial Court and diligently prosecute the proceedings. Unless the NBW issued against the petitioner is recalled, the petitioner would be put to great hardship.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that due to the non-cooperation of the petitioner, the trial Court has not been able to proceed with the matter. The petitioner remained absent on several occasions, and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C. No. 18651 of 2019 for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner, along with accused Nos.2 and 3, who are none other than the parents of the petitioner filed an application, namely Crl.M.P.No.5910 of 2025, seeking recall of the NBW issued against him. The trial Court allowed the application in part insofar as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned and dismissed the application against the petitioner. The record further reveals that the petitioner is engaged in private employment. According to the averments made in the petition as well as in the memorandum of grounds, accused Nos.2 and 3 were suffering from ill health, and the petitioner was attending to their welfare. It is further averred that due to miscommunication between the petitioner and his counsel, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on the said date.

6. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.5910 of 2025 in C.C.No.18651 of 2019, in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the NBW, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the NBW issued against the petitioner is recalled, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner shall also file a sworn undertaking before the trial Court that he sha