Partly allowed

Madireddy Venkata Vijaya Ram v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Aug 2024CRLRC/828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court permitted petitioner to renew passport for three years despite pending 498-A case, modifying trial court order. Court directed trial court to issue notice/bail conditions if petitioner fails to appear. Petitioner is software employee needing valid travel documents, opposing counsel warned of flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to renew passport till 30-04-2025. Trial court directed to issue NBWs on expiry if petitioner absent.

Madireddy Venkata Vijaya Ram Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t32eeI

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF^AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 828^{OF 2024}

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under^{Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS} against the Judgment 01.05.2024^{made in Crl'M.P.No.731of 2024 in C.C.No.} Zl+l I ot 2O22 on the file of the^{Courtof the Xlll AdditionalChiefMetropolitan} Magistrate (Mahila Court)^{At Hyderabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

tvladireddy Venkata Vijaya Ram,^{S/o Madireddy Rama Krishna.Aggda.q} years, Oc'c.Private Em[6yee, Villa No.204, The Legend^{Chimes, Gandipet X} Road, Kokapet, Hyderabad.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its PublicProsecutor, High Court at} Hyderabad.

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of^{BNSS praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^filed in^{suppo( of the petition, the High Courtmay be} pleased to direct to permit the^petitioner to^{renew his passport bearingNo.} ksz+sogo for a^period of three^{years in the interestof justice in the interestof} justice.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: Sri P.Shashi Kiran}

¶17

counseI for the Respondent^{: smt S.Madhavi,Assistant PublicProsecutor}

¶18

The Court made the following^{: ORDER}

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENT,GOPAL CRIMINAL RTVISION CASE No. a2a of2o24

¶21

OR D ER:

¶22

The present Criminal Revision Case is fil:d under Sections 43g ard 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seekin g the following reliet

¶23

fi ,",!1.ffi pSf,:i;':)f :iSi 04.t r.2024 "t",i,";"# ^passporT^{from Ot.05.2024 to} Li",i{i:o.^"oi";;;ffi^';:''";,:;A;,'f ,:,;j;";f ;;:

¶24

c Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 and Ms.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for respondent_State. perused the record.

¶25

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submit_s that the petitioner is a software employee ald he requires to visit his clients abroad. Unless ald until his passport is valid for a period of six months, majority of the Countries will not permit him to enter into their Country on VISA. Therefore, the impugned order dated 0I.0S.2O24 passed by the learned trial Court to renew the passport for a short period of time

¶26

EW,J CvLR.c-No-a2s oJ 2024

¶27

¶28

from 01.05.2024 to^{04.11.2024 will not serve the purposeof} the petitioner. He further^{submits that the petitioner will} abide by the conditions^{imposedby the learned trial Court'} Hence, he seeks to^{set aside the order dated O1'05'2024and} permit the petitioner to renew^{his passportfor a period of} three years.

¶29

Opposing the same, the^{learned Additional Public} Prosecutor submits^{that a criminal case is pending against} the petitioner for the^{offencepunishable under Section498-A} of IPC and there is^{every possibility that the petitionermay} evade the trial and^{may not returnto India,if the passport is} renewed for a longer^{period of time. Hence, she seeks to} dismiss the^Revision.

¶30

Having regard to the^{submissionsmade bythe} respective counsel^{and upon perusal of the materialon} record and in view^{of the pendencyof C'C'No'2471of 2022} on the hle of^{learned trial Court whereinthe petitionerherein} was arrayed as A.^{1, this Court deems it appropriate to renew} his passport by modifying^{the impugned order dated}

¶31

¶32

¶33

EIry,J CrLR.C.No,a2a^{oJ 2024}

¶34

O1.O5.2O24 passed by the learned^{tria,I Court and directing} the petitioner I Al to^renew his^{passport tlll 30-O4.2025}

¶35

However, it is made clear that^{the petitioner shall} appear before the trial Court on or^{before the date of expiry} of his passport i.e. 3O.O4.2O25, as^{per the date of listing} before the trial Court. In default, the^{trial Court is directed} to issue NBWs against the^{petitioner/Al, apart from} addressing a letter to the^{passportoffice.}

¶36

With the above said observation, this Criminal^Re:vision

¶37

Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pending if any,} shall stand closed.

¶38

Sd/- P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

--)

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

l.TheXlllAdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrate(MahilaCourt)At Hyderabad.

¶44

Oie CC to^{Sri P.Shashi Kiran, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶45

3.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

¶46

Two CD Copies

SVS/gh

c^u

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 310812024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.828 of 2024

/. '_,<br>i
I
<br>-'.,..:-,.'-*.- -,,

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC

¶56

@ff'r*

Madireddy Venkata Vijaya Ram v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madireddy Venkata Vijaya Ram v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrikant Oza Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Chunduru Phani Krishna Prasad Vs Smt. Julakanti Swapna

Pedduri Suresh Vs the State of Telangana

Ponagandla Jyothi and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

M. Vijaya Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

N. Prem Chander, Hyd Vs Myakala Shiva Prakash, Sec-Bad and Anr.