HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15693 of 2025

DATE OF ORDER:- 28.11.2025

BETWEEN:

Kaleem Siddiqui, S/o.Ghouse Mohiuddin

R/o.Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana rep. through its

Public Prosecutor, having office at

T.S.High Court, Hyderabad & another.

… Respondents

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15693 of 2025

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking to set-aside the docket order dated 24.08.2024 in C.C.No.8124 of 2024, on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.5 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned petitioner’s counsel submits that the Trial Court, while taking cognizance of the offences, had issued Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner/accused No.5, which is not just and proper. Learned counsel has relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and has submitted that the petitioner herein is facing allegations under Sections 498-A , 406 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and further submitted that the petitioner himself is implicated in a false case and is a resident of USA and that the Trial Court has issued summons against accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 but has issued NBW against the petitioner herein and accused No.3 without assigning any reasons. In the first instance itself, the Court cannot issue NBW without giving a chance to the petitioner for appearing before the Court on issuance of summons. If the petitioner failed to oblige the summons, then only NBW could have been issued by the Court. He therefore prayed to set-aside the docket order dated 24.08.2024 in C.C.No.8124 of 2024 passed by the Trial Court.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner herein is evading the process of law and has never cooperated with the investigation and was absconding during the course of investigation and thus, he is not entitled to any relief. He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The recitals of charge sheet point out that the complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant against accused Nos.1 to 5 and the FIR was registered under Sections 498- A , 406 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After conducting investigation, the charge sheet was laid by praying the Court to issue NBW against accused Nos.3 & 5 stating that they have been absconding from the date of registration of FIR. The Trial Court has taken the case on file and on 24.08.2024 has passed the following impugned docket order:-

“DOCKET ORDER Dt:24-08-2024 Perused the statements of the LW1 to LW7 charge sheet contents and other documents filed by the investigation officer, which made out the prima- facie case against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the allegations leveled against them U/s.498-A, 406, 506 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act. The office is directed to register this case as CC.No.8124/2024. Issue summons to Accused No.1, 2 & 4 and issue NBW against Accused No.3 & 5. Call on

03.01.2025.

Sd/-

XV Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.”

6. The contention of the petitioner is that on the first date of hearing, the Trial Court could not have been issued the Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner herein and that he is a law abiding citizen and would have appeared on issuance of summons. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the orders dated 24.08.2024 are against the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation. The concerned officer ought to have assigned re