THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.641 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri R. Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) to set aside the remand docket orders both dated 09.01.2025 in Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024 of P.S.Bomraspet, pertaining to the same incident which is the subject matter of FIR No.153 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE &ACB Cases –cum – Special Judge for Trial of Cases filed Under PDPP Act, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the trial Court’) and consequently quash the proceedings in the above said crimes. 3. Vide the aforesaid remand orders, the trial Court remanded the petitioners herein to judicial custody till 23.01.2025 in Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024.

4.The particulars of the date, place and time of incident, offences which are relevant and the same are extracted below:-

Cr. Name of the Place of the Time of Offences No. complainant i n c i d ent the & incident Designation

153/ N.Srinivasa Anjaneya 12.20 under Sections 61 (2), 2024 Reddy, Temple, PM 191(2), 191(3) 132,109, Sub Primary 121(1), 126(2), 324 (4) read Divisional School, with 190 BNS, Section 3 of Police Lagcherla PDPPA Officer, Vikarabad

154/ Karra Kishan Hanuman Not under Sections 191(2), 2024 MRO, temple, specific 191(3) 132,109, 121(1), Dudyal Lagicherla ally 126(2), 324 (4) read with mentio 190 BNS, Section 3 of ned in PDPPA the complai nt

155/ District Chellapuram 12.20 under Sections 191(2), 2024 Crime Venkataiah’s PM 191(3) 132,109, 121(1), Report residence, 126(2), 324 (4) read with Bureau, Lagcherla 190 BNS, Section 3 of (DCRB) PDPPA DSP, Vikarabad

5. The petitioners herein are A.32, A.68, A.69 and A.70 in Cr.No.153 of 2024.

6. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows:-

i. The proceedings are maliciously instituted with an intention to implicate the petitioners in the present crimes. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in the aforesaid crimes is an abuse of process of law.

ii. The police completed material part of the investigation and all material witnesses were examined as such there will be no apprehension of tampering with the evidence.

iii. The petitioners attended the public hearing to express their grievance relating to the proposed land acquisition proceedings but not involved in the alleged incident as such no such motive could be attributed to the petitioners.

iv. The prosecution failed to show that the petitioners herein had shared a common object with other Members of the alleged unlawful assembly.

v. The date of incident, place of incident etc., are same. Basing on the same incident, the police cannot register the aforesaid three crimes against the petitioner herein.

vi. The allegation against the petitioners herein is conspiracy.

vii. The allegations leveled against the petitioners in all three crimes are one and the same and therefore, registration of the other two crimes i.e. Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 is illegal and they are liable to be quashed.

viii. Reliance is placed on the principle laid down in Akbaruddin Owaisi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2013 (6) ALT 101, Smt.

K.Mathamma vs. State of Telangana² With the said submissions, he sought to quash the Cr.Nos.154 and

155 of 2024.

7. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the aforesaid three crimes are different. Place of incident is different. Victims and accused are different. Even the offences are also different. There is no political motive. The petitioners have attacked the District Collector, Special Officer, KADA and other officials, who went to the spot for the purpose of conducting public hearing. They have formed into unlawful assembly and attacked the said S