4IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.2351 of 2026 DATE: 27.01.2026 Between:

Smt. Sura Laxmi.

...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and 4 others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to the respondents by declaring issuing of Form 16 vide proceedings No.MC.No.A/78/2026, dated 22.01.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also against to the principles of Natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned orders vide proceedings No.MC.No.A/78/2026, dated 22.01.2026…”

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the issuance of proceedings in Form No.16, whereby and whereunder a Warrant of Commitment was issued against the petitioner for failure to furnish security for good behaviour under Section 141 of the BNSS. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was directed to undergo imprisonment as imposed by the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Khanapur Mandal, in M.C. No. A/78/2026 dated 22.01.2026. Consequently, the Prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal, issued the warrant on 22.01.2026 and remanded the petitioner to the custody of the District Jail, Adilabad. Through the said order, the petitioner has been placed in judicial custody. Aggrieved by the said proceedings and warrant of commitment, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a notice for forfeiture of bond for good behaviour under Section 122(1)(b) of the BNSS is stated to have been issued to the petitioner on 22.12.2025 in M.C. No. A/1531/2025, alleging breach of the bond by the petitioner on the ground of commission of an offence under Section 7(A) read with Section 8(e) of the Prohibition Act, 1995, in Crime No. 667/2024 dated 14.11.2024 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station (SHO), Nirmal. By the said notice, the petitioner was called upon either to pay a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- or to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why she should not be adjudged to undergo imprisonment.

3.1. He would further submit that the petitioner, being illiterate, was not in a position to submit any effective explanation within the short period of seven days and, in fact, was unaware of the issuance of the said notice. Without proper application of mind and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed in M.C. No. A/78/2026 dated 22.01.2026 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal, holding that the petitioner had breached the bond by allegedly committing an offence in Crime No. 667/2024 dated 14.11.2024.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and without assigning any reasons, particularly on the aspect of the petitioner allegedly not furnishing any explanation in response to the notice issued under Section 122(1)(b) of the BNSS. He would, in the first instance, submit that pursuant to the order passed by the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Khanapur Mandal, in M.C. No. A/78/2026 dated 22.01.2026, the petitioner has been remanded to the District Jail, Adilabad.

3.3. Secondly, learned counsel would submit that placing reliance on C.O.R. No. 70 of 2025 dated 19.02.2025 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal, cannot constitute a valid ground to hold the petitioner guilty of breach of bond. In the said case, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused and was initially shown as absconding; however, no proceedings have been conducted therein and there is no conviction against the petitioner. In