CRLRC/789/2025 of M.Ashok Yadav Vs STATE OF TELANGANA, on 6 November 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner- accused seeking to set aside impugned order dated 17.1O.2025 in Criminal l\/iscellaneous Petition (SR) No.5001 of 2025 in Crime No.683 of 2025 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Judicial ltllagistrate at Hyderabad, wherein an application filed by the petitioner under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was returned.

02. Heard Sri S.M. Saifullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri [4 Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has erroneously returned the application without considering the fact that the liberty of the accused is at stake and the impugned order is passed mechanically without application of the judicious mind. Hence, while praying to set aside the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram

Bharoshi and others v. sfafe of lJ.p. and anothe/ wherein it was held that "77. ln the light of the aforesaid discussion it is abundantly clear that there is no pro.hibition on a Magistrate to grant bail in a Sessio ns triable case, unless it is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and it is absolutely necessaty that the Magistrates give up the erroneous practice of refusing to consider or grant bails in such cases where there rs no prohibition under the Code of Criminal Procedure."'

04. on the other hand, the learned Additional public Prosecutor fclr the State submitted that the learned t/agistrate has rightly returned the bail application as one of the offence is triable by the learned Court of Sessions ancj there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned fi/agistrate. Hence, he prayed to dismiss flre criminal revision case

05. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, it is apparent on record that the alleged offences are under Sections lT, Tg, 351(2), 331(5), 296,238 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 2023. out of which the offence under section TT of the BNS is a non- ' 200+ scc online A[ 642 qr bailable offence and exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Once it is evident from the allegations and the nature of the offences that one of the offences is triable by the Sessions Court, the proper course for the petitioner-accused would be to approach the Sessions Court for bail. The learned [\Iagistrate, on finding that the case involves an offence triable by the Sessions Court, has rightly refrained from entertaining the application and returned it. ln view of 1:he foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order warranting interf'erence under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. However, rhe petitioner- accused is at liberty to avail the remedy of seeking bail before the concerned Sessions Court.

06. With the above observations, this Crinrinal Revision Case is disposed of As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed DEPUW REGISTRAR G/ /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1- The Xlv Additional chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad _:r c To, '_..--..t.....'..4---- L Z. Two CCs to Additional Public Prosecutcir , High Gourt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

3. One Ct to SRl. S. M .SAIFULLAH, Advocate [oPUc]

4. Two CD Copies I kul/ABK \Q

I 't zffi HIGH COURT DATED:0611112025

ORDER

CRLRC.No.789 o12025 DISPOSTNG OF THE CRL.R.C :::-=:::*-\_ (- 0lrlt t-t() ;, .l.r

* i rrl ...-(1 -l -...:..; ,S,L fr6,