##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.17680 of 2025

Date:30.12.2025

Between:

Chithavaduta Rukmangada Babu

…Petitioner/Sole Accused

And

State of Telangana,

Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana,

Hyderabad and another

... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-sole accused

seeking to reduce the quantum of surety amount imposed by the

learned V Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad, vide docket

order dated 25.11.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.2226 of 2025 in CC.NI.

No.3595 of 2025, a petition filed under Section 70(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

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.1,50,000/- 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 Instruments 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

3 ETD,J

Crl.P. No.17680 of 2025

said case, as such, the trial court issued NBW against the petitioner

and hence, he filed the impugned application. While recalling the

NBW vide 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 24.12.2025. The present criminal petition is filed by the

petitioner to modify the said condition by reducing the surety amount.

7. The petitioner could not appear as he has not received the

summons and so issuance of NBW is not just and proper. The trial

court also has observed the same and considered the reason to be

bonafide and cancelled the NBW. But, at the same time, the trial

court went ahead in directing the petitioner to furnish a personal

bond of Rs.1,50,000/- along with two sureties for the like sum on or

before 24.12.2025.

8. In Crl.P. No.16005 of 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. State of Maharashtra [2015 SCC OnLine BOM 4208] and

Kamakshi Forex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Lorencio Rebello [Crl.W.P.

No.11 of 2023 dated 28.02.2023] and held that:

4 ETD,J

Crl.P. No.17680 of 2025

“7. In Subhash Atmaram Sharma v. State of Maharashtra

[2015 SCC OnLine BOM 4208], the High Court of Bombay laid down

the principle that in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, the execution of a surety bond is not invariably

required, and that where the accused consistently attends the

proceedings, their presence can be adequately secured by a personal

bond, with a surety bond being warranted only when there is a

demonstrated tendency to remain absent without reasonable cause.

8. It is also relevant to mention that in Kamakshi Forex Pvt.

Ltd. & Ors. v