CRLRC/751/2025 of Guniganti Ravinder Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, on 28 October 2025

ORDER:

Petitioner-ar;cused No.1 filed this Criminal Revision Case seeking to qua:;h the order, dated 26 Og.2O2S passed in Crl.R P.No.4 of 2O2S by the learned principal Sessiorrs Judge at Bhuvanagirr

2. Heard Mr. T.pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing t\Ir. T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned c;ounsel for the petitroner and Mr. Itl.Ramachandra Reddy, Iearnec Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent_State. F erused the record.

3. Case of the Detitioner is that initially a case in Crirne No.173 of 2014 was registe:red for the offence under section 174 of cr.p.c. Based on the evidernce collected during the course of inrrs5ligsfiqn, the section of law was altered from Section 174 of Cr.p.C. to Sections 120-8 a,d 306 r/w. 34 of rpc and the narne of the petitioner was shovrn as accused No.1. on coming to know about the registratron of the said crime, the petitioner approrrched this Court by filing W p.No j7530 of ZO15 seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him. This Court, by an orrler, dated

'1': 17.06.2015, directed the Police not to arrest the petitioner, and further directed the petitioner not to leave the country. After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 120-B and 306 rlw.34 of lPC, the same was taken cognizance and numbered as P.R.C.No.31 of 2019. While so, W.P.No.'17530 of 2015 was withdrawn.

4. lt is the further case of the petitioner that LOC was issued against him since he neither appeared before the Magistrate Court nor engaged any counsel on his behalf. On 19.04.2025, when he returned to lndia, he was arrested at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad. After his release, he filed an application seeking return of his passport before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhongir i.e., Magistrate Court, which was allowed on 07.05.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred Crl.R.P.No.4 of 2025 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Bhuvanagiri. The learned Sessions Judge, by an order, dated 26.09.2025' has allowed the said revision petition, setting aside the order, dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate and directed the petitioner to surrender his passport before the Magistrate Court. Challenging the said order, the present revision case is filed.

-=---7 '' -_ '_ e-

5. Learned Si:nior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge erred in passing the impugned order. The learne:d Sessions Judge ought to have appr.eciated that the petitioner is a citizen of USA. As the petitioner is noi having any knowledge about the issuance of NBW and LOC, he has, returned to lndia, whereupon he was detained at Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Airport, Hyderabarl, remanded to judicial custody, his passport was seized and deposited before the lVagistrate Court. Being a citizen of USA, the petitioner cannot stay in lndia for more than stx months.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the ltetitioner is suffering from multiple health ailments, including stroke, memory loss and seizures and had underwent treatment in UliA He is required to return to USA for treatment and for further medicar care as his health condition is deteriorating day by day. His wife is a Cardiologist by pr.ofession working in USA and all his family members are also residing in USA. Out of 13 accused in the case, proceedings agarnst accused Nos.4 to 13 have arre:ady been quashed by this Crturt. Further, the petitioner diligenfly appeared before the r\4agistrate court on 12 occasions from the rrate of his release, however, tre tVlagistrate Court failed to commit :he p.R.C. to the sessions cor-rrt tiil date. The matter is coming up for committar in the lVlagistrate Court on 30.10.2025. The petitioner undertakes to return to lndia within six months

7. ln support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Ganapati Ramnath v. Stafe of Bihar and another', wherein, the appellanUaccused therein was permitted to travel abroad sub.iect to certain conditions, in view of the necessity for medical treatment. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order and permit him to travel to USA for six months.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the impugned order and the same cannot be interfered with lnspite of the direction of this courl not to leave the country, the petitioner went to USA and returned to lndia duly after lapse of 11 years lf the petitioner is permitted to travel, he may not return to lndia' Hence, he prayed to dismiss the revision.

9. Considering the exigencies of the medical treatment to be undergone by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that he has appeared before the Magistrate Court on the last 12 occasions, and in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, the impugned ' 20 t5 SCC OLrt,ine SC I878

.':]ry..4f,t'r: F- ! -, order, dated 26.09.2025 passed in Crl.R.p.No .4 of 1tOZ5 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Bhuvanagiri is hereby set aside and the order, Ja-ed 07 OS2025 passed in p R.C.No 3.l of 2019 by the learned Principal Junior Civil J udge_cum_princioal Judicial [/lagistrate of Frirst Class at Bhongir, shall stand revived Further, since the P R.C. rs of the year 201g and the same is; posted to 30'10.2025 the, rerarned principar Junior civir Judge-cum-principar Judicial Magistrate: of First Class at Bhongir, is directerl to commit the P.R.C. in resp:ct of the petitioner to the Sessions C)ourt on the said date, if the petitioner is present on the said date. After committal of the case, the petitioner is permitted to travel to USA, subject to the follorving conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.'l 0,00,(t00/- with one surety for the like sum in the shape of =.D.R. to the satisfaction of the [r/lagyistrate Court

(ii) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the A/lagistrate Court that he will return to lndia within six months and he shall appear before the tVlag istrate Court withir one week of his return to lndia.

(iii) fhe peititioner shall furnish his address at .J.S A and mobile number used in U.S.A. I

10. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. lt is needless to mention that if the other accused are not present on 30.10.2025, the learned [\/agistrate shall commit tl're P.R.C. to the Sessions Court in respect of the petitioner by splitting up the case against other accused Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- N SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Sessions Judge at Bhuvanagiri

2. The Principal Junior Civil J udge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.

3. The Station House Officer, Bhongir Rural Police Station, Yadadri Bhongir District.

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to [r4r. T.S. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CD Copies Kam/ABK To, I i I

HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025

ORDER

CRLRC.No.751 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CR!MINAL RIEVISION CASE k r1HE STAIr )Espnr ?s 0t1 ?ffi r, o O t

{\u a ,,1