CRLP/15988/2026 of Mohd Faraz Vs The State of Telangana on 29 September 2026

1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O Malakpet P.S, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Farana Begum, Wo. Mohd Abrar Moosa, Age- 34 years, Occ- Housewife, Fl/o. H. No. 22-2-256, Bhojaani Estate, Noor Khan Bazaar, Purane Haveli, Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. ,..RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the docket order dated 18.08.2026 passed in C.C. No. 10252 of 2022 by the learned Vll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, insofar as the same directs issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the Petitioner, and consequently direct the learned Trial Court to recall/cancel the said Non-Bailable Warrant and permit the Petitioner to participate through his counsel. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DR.J. VIJAYALAXMI, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and none appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT F'OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15988 of 2026 lCNR.No. HBHCOr0648832026) DATE OF ORDER:29.09.2o.26 Be tween: Mohcl l,'ara;r AND Thc Starte oi Te langana ThroLrgh S.t{.O Malakper P.S, Rcp. c1 I)uLrlic l)rosccuror, Ilrgh (ior_rrt Hvde-abad & anoLher ln Petitioner OBDES: Respondents 'l his Criminal Petition has bccrr lilcd agericved b1. Lhe docker order dated 18.0E.1026 passed C.C.No l0252 ol 2012 bv rhe. 'l .ial (lourt issLred NB\\'agairrst thc 1-rctiti.,cr.ciLrc [o his abscncc si,cc Icarned \rll Additional Chiel Judicial Magisrrare, H_,-derabad at Nampallv (hereinafter be relerred as I'rial Court) wherein. the Iearned long tirne and postcd the rnatter to l7.l 1.2026 IIeard Dr.J.Vi.laya [-axurr. lear.ncd Senior Counsel representing

Sri K.Ashok Chakravath_r. lcarnccl courrscl fbr the petitioner and

Sri Jithcndcr [{ao Vcclarnalla' the lcarncd Additional Public I)rosccutor appcalipg lbr thc rcspondent No l State'

3. Notice in respect of respondent No'2 is dispensed with on the ground that the petitioncr is rlot sccking any Ieliefagainst respondent No.l and is sccking recallol'NuW issrred against l.rim'

4. Learned Senior Counsel appcaring 1br the petitioncr subrr-rits that the pctitioncr is arrayed as atr accuscd in C C No l0252 ol- 2022 bclbrc thc lcarnccl .l rial CoLrrt a6cl Iire ing prosecution lbr thc ol'l'cnces under Section 323 and 506 ol IPc. 'l'he petitioner had approached this Clourl vide Crl.P.No.9747 ol 2024 seeking quashment of proceedings in c.(l.No. 102-52 of 2022 whcrcin. this Court' uhile ordering notice befbre admission, dispensed with thc presence ol the petitioner betbre the Iearned'l rial Court and whcn thc said order is in lbrce' the learned 'l rial ('our.t Itad issr-rcd NI)\\, against thc pctitioncr on thc ground o1- his non-represen tatios lb1 a long tinlc. A perusal ol the Daily Status ol'the said C.C].10252 o1'2022 clearly discloses that on 18 08'2026' during the call work. the Iearned 'tlial Cou( issued NUW against the pctitioncr w'ithout givino. rcasot.tithlc opp111'1lr11ity to the petitioner to Irle appropriatc applicatiorr thlough his coutrscl dispensirrg w ith his pl'csencc. Senior Counscl lirrtl-rcr strbnlits that thc counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is representing the matter before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of adjournment and however on 18.08.2026, as the learned counsel for the petitioner was held up before this Court in W.P.No.27l 15 of 202,6 which was posred for admission as item No.3 before Court No. 10, he could not able to appear belbre the Trial Court and as soon as he completed the work before the High Court, he rushed to the Trial Court and by the time he reached, the Iearned Trial Court had issued NBW aeainst the petilioner. Hence, the docket order dated 18.08.2026 passed ln C.CNo.10252 of 2022 by the learned Trial Courr is liable to be quashed. l-eamed Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner is residing at Dubai on account of his employment and due to the said reason only, he could not appear before the leamed l'rial Court. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, ln support of her contentions, relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANR. V STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORSI.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public prosecutor for respondent No.l-State submits rhat this Court in Crl.p.No.9747 of 2024 specifically observed that the appearance of the '1zooz1 to s.c. R

petitioner/accused before the Trial Court is dispensed with whenever his presence is not required subject to the condition that petitioner/accused is being represented by his counsel on every date of hearing and in case of non-appearance of the petitioner/accused on the specific date so fixed by the Trial Court for his appearance, the interim order gets vacated automatically. The matter before the Trial Court was posted for examination of the petitioner/accused and his presence is very much required. The petitioner was absented on several times from 23.12.2024, 11.06.2025, 31.01 .2025, 24-ll-2025, 04j2.2025 and 08.05.2026 and on 18.08.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner nor frled any application seeking to dispense with his presence. Hence, the learned Trial Court had rightly issued NBW against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is having alternative remedy to approach the leamed Trial Court by filing an appropriate application under Section 10(2) of Cr.P.C./Section 72 of BNSS, 2023 seeking recall of NBW. By raising the very same grounds, without filing such application, the petitioner straightaway approached this Courl and hled the present Criminal Petition which is not maintainable under law.

llaving considered the rival submissions made by the respective lacinu prosccLrtion lirl thc ollcnccs r-rndcr Scctions IS partrcs and r-rpon pe'rusal ol the ntatcrial availablc on rccord. it rcr cai.s that thc pcl;tioncr IS cor.rrscl lbr the pu'titioncr. thc rnarrcl bclirlc thc Ilial ( oLrrL is posrr.d under Section J-J and 506 of IPC in C.C.No.l0252 of 2022 and the petitioner is arraved as sole accused. Ilven accordinp to the learned for examination of the accused and the presence of tl-re petitioner very much required. l'he record further reveals that the petitioner rL'lIa incd it bscn t rln thern. I lorl ever. ln I I l0tl 06 1015 I1 07 t()15. tl | 1015. thc pctitioncl and 04.11.2015 and 0u.05.1026 and on 18.08.2016, neither the pctirioner nor anYonc represented on his behalf and due to the said reason onl1., thc Icarned 'J'rial ('oult had issLrcd \ll\\' il0arnst posted the rlatter ro 17.I l.l0l6. In rhis regard. it is relerant ro rnention that as per the provisions of Section 70(2) of (lr.P,C./Section 7l ol'tlNSS 20tl tht-' partics alc. cntitlcd to tjlt- an application fbr recalling of NB\\'s bv raising rtll thc plcas *,hich ur.c ar. ailablc to the present case, the petitioner. w,ithout availine sLrch rerncdv. approached this (lourt dircctll, and ll led the pr.esent C rirn inal pcLit ion

1. laking into consideration of thc pcculiar lacts and circumstances of lhe casc, thc pctitioner is granted liberty to approach the leamed'lrial Court and file appropriate application invoking the provisions under Section 70(2) o1'Cr.P.C./Section 7?. ol BNSS, 2023 and on such application, thc lcalncd lnal C-ourt is directed to consider the same and pass appropriatc orders in accordance with lar,,', as cxpeditiously as possible prelcrably within a pcriod ol one weck liotn thc clatc of'Iiling ol'such application

8. With the above said direction. the Crirninal Pctition is disposcd ol accordingly.

9. Misccllancous applications pcncling. il'an1'. shall stand closed SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secr1effip1"=* To, '1. The Vll Additional Chief Judicial l\/agistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Malakpet, Hyderabad.

3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to DR.J VIJAYALAXMI Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies TPKGNK

HIGH COURT DATED: 29109t2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15988 of 2026 i,'.) t t) \ .":.. til' l:. -" .-:1:i-. a" \ ' ,.'c-:' r5 lrr m CRIMINAL PETITION !S DISPOSED OF {rd d.\.0\,YL