IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3466 of 2026 Date: 11.03.2026 Between:

Bheemuani Durga Prasad ...petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Women Police Station, Begumpet, North Zone, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ...respondents

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Trial Court’) in Crl.M.P.No.267 of 2026 in CC.No.11346 of 2020 where-under, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C, seeking recall of the Non-Bailable Warrant (for short ‘NBW’) dated 06.02.2026 was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri D. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

3. As the petitioner is not seeking any relief against respondent No.2, notice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to ill- health, the petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.267 of 2026 in CC.No.11346 of 2020. However, the petitioner represented the matter through his Counsel. Inspite of the same, the Trial Court has issued Non-Bailable Warrant on 06.02.2026. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C vide Crl.M.P.No.267 of 2026 in CC.No.11346 of 2020 on 10.02.2026 to recall the NBW dated 06.02.2026. However, the Trial Court without properly considering the averments made in support of the application, has erroneously dismissed the said application through docket order dated 19.02.2026 without assigning any reasons, only on the sole ground that the petitioner was not present physically. Unless this Court recalls the NBW issued against the petitioner, he will be put to great hardship. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner will appear before the Trial Court on 20.03.2026 and the Trial Court may be directed to pass orders afresh.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter before the Trial Court is coming up for the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the petitioner has not appeared before the Trial Court intentionally on three occasions. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly issued NBW against the petitioner, as the petitioner has not cooperated before the Trial Court to prosecute the proceedings and there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.11346 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act. It is not in dispute that the matter before the Trial Court is coming up for examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for which the presence of the petitioner is required.

7. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned docket order dated 19.02.2026, passed by the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.267 of 2026 in CC.No.11346 of 2020 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 20.03.2026 and the learned Magistrate is further directed to consider the said application filed by the petitioner on the very same date and recall NBW issued against the petitioner dated 06.02.2026 subject to the condition that the petitioner/accused shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and he shall file a sworn affidavit that he will be represented through his counsel on 20.03.2026 for examination under Section 31