IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.4272 OF 2026

11.02.2026 Between:

Prem Kumar Reddy Putha …Petitioner A N D The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.

…Respondents ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)

Heard the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, and perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Un Crl.R.P.No. of 2025 in SR No.1019 of 2025, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to permit him to appear and argue as party-in-

person, was rejected.

3. The learned Principal Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioner was not able to answer to the questions put to him and also found that the petitioner is not in a position to assist the Court and he was informed to engage a counsel of his choice or will be provided free legal aid from the District Legal Services Authority, Khammam. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The petitioner contends that the learned Principal Sessions Judge refused permission to him to appear before the Court and argue his case as party-in-person, though he undertook to maintain proper decorum, dignity and discipline throughout the proceedings before the Court and further Section 340 of the BNSS confers a statutory right on a person to conduct his own case and prayed to quash the impugned order.

5. Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 reads as under:

340. Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended.— Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Sanhita, may of right be defended by an advocate of his choice.

Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under the BNSS, as a matter of right, is entitled to be defended by a pleader of his choice, by virtue of a statutory right conferred on the accused under Section 340 of BNSS. Further, there is no bar provided under the said section against a person against whom proceedings are instituted to appear as party-in-person.

6. During the course of hearing, this Court tried to convince the petitioner that he will be provided legal aid to defend his case in a better way, for which the petitioner submitted that earlier also when he engaged a counsel, the said counsel could not present his case well and he requests this Court to permit him to appear in person and argue his case. Be that as it may, as he submitted that earlier also he appeared and contested his cases as party-in- person, this Court is left with no option but to accede to the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner is not inclined to take assistance of any lawyer or even the assistance or aid of legal aid defence counsel as suggested by the Bench. Further, he also submitted an undertaking before the trial Court that he would maintain proper decorum, dignity and discipline while appearing in the Court and the Section throughout the Court proceedings pending against him.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Un Crl.R.P.No. of 2025 in SR No.1019 of 2025 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is permitted to appear as party-in-person and he should abide by the undertaking given by him before the Court below to maintain proper decorum, dignity and discipline throughout the proceedings before the Court.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________