Allowed

Amgoth Saroja v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024WP/2158/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a warrant issued under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. for the petitioner's detention. The Court held that the warrant was illegal because the petitioner was not convicted, and the magistrate failed to pass a reasoned order under Section 117(1) of Cr.P.C. recording proof of bond breach.

What did the court decide?

Impugned warrant dated 24.01.2023 issued in M.C.No.A/S3/2022 was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be released from District Jail.

Amgoth Saroja Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^32s6I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERA'BAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF^MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.^{BHASKAR REODY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2158 OF²⁰²³

¶7

Between:

¶8

Amqoth Saroia, W/o. Ramesh,^{Aged about24 Yea$, Occ. Coolie, Rl/o-} H.N"o.¹ -6-241, Sundaraiah Nagar,^{Mahabubabad MandalandMahabubabad} District.^(Presently in District Jail,^{Khammam) Representedby her husband} Angoth Ramesh, Aged. 35^years, Occ.Coolie.

¶9

...PET|T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by^{its Principal Secretary, ExciseDepartment,} Secretariat, Hyderabad-

¶12

2 The Execuiive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar,^{MahabubabadMandal,} t\ra ha buba bad District.

¶13

3 The Station House Officer,^{Prohibitionand Excise Station,lr/ahabubabad,} Mahabubabad District.

¶14

4 The Superintendent, District Jail,^{at Khammam,KhammamDistrict.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petitron under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or^{Direction, more parlicularlyone in} the nature of writ of^{Mandamus, declaringthe actionof the 2nd Respondentin} issuing the warrant in MC No.^{A15312022, daled24.01 .202 3 as illegal, arbitrary} and in vrolation of Article 14 and^{21 0f the constitution of lndia and also violative} of procedure^prescribed under^{cr. P.c and consequently set aside warrantin MC} No. A15312022. dated 24.01 .2023^{and also direct the 4th respondentto release} the Petitioner from the District^{Jail, at Khammam, Khammam District} lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petrtion under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filecl in support of the^{petition, the High court may be pleasedto}

¶18

I I E ! :

¶19

direct the respondents herein to release the Petitioner herein from the District Jail, at Khammam, Khammam District pending disposal of the main Writ Petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. LAXMALLA SANDEEP

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

Counsel for^-the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

fr I l

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2158 of 2o23

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is frled challenging the impugned warrant dated 24.O1.2O23 issued by respondent No.2-Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate at Mahabubabad in M.C.No.A/S3 /2022 in exercise of powers under Section 122(lllbl of Cr.P.C.

¶29

The impugned warrant reflects that after being bound over, the petitioner was implicated in M.C.No.A/S3 12022, dated 3O.O4.2O22. Owing to the alleged involvement of the petitioner in Excise Offence, respondent No.2 concluded that the petitioner has committed breach of the bond furnished by her under Section 110 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 722(ll(bl of Cr.P.C, if any person after having executed a bond without sureties for keeping the peace in pursuance ofan order ofa Magistrate under Section ll7 of Cr.P.C, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor-in-oflice, to have committed breach of the bond, such Magistrate or successor-inoffiqg Eay, after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the

¶31

¶32

person be arrested and detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the bond and such order shall be without prejudice to any other punishment or forfeiture to which. the said^person may be liable in accordance with law. Learned counsel contends that respondent^' No.2 issued the impugned warrant in exercise of powers under Section I 22( 1)(b) of Cr. P. C without affording any opportunity of hearing or without assigning any reasons as required under Section ll7 of Cr.P.C and as such prayed for setting aside the impugned warrant.

¶33

This Court is of the opinion that the authority is empowered to issue warrant under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C only after passing reasoned orders under Section 117(1) of Cr.P.C. Further, mere arraignment in an offence cannot be taken to be a conviction whereby it could be said that the petitioner had committed a breach of the bond furnished by her for maintaining^good behavior and the respondent authorities cannot exercise the^powers under Section 122(Ll(b) of Cr.P.C. for detaining the petitioner in^prison for violation of the alleged breach of bond. Therefore, unless the petitioner has been held guilty of an5, offence or being convicted by the competent criminal Courts, the respondent authorities are not

¶34

¶35

having power to hold that mere involvement in a crime would itself constitute breach of bond furnished by the petitioner.

¶36

Further, this Court in similar cirpumstances has ta:ken a similar view in W.P.Nos.4802 of 2016 dated 15.02.2016, 12274 of 2022 dated'24.O8.2o22 and 13381 of 2023 dated 11.05.2023.

¶37

In view of the same and since the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the offences which were registered against her and the respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated under Cr.P.C. by passing a reasoned order under Section 117(1) of Cr.P.C, the impugned warrant is liable to be set aside.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned warrant dated 24.01.2O23 issued in M.C.No.A/53/2022, on the file of the Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate, Mahabubabad. No order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶40

stand closed

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SD/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGtSTRAR,

: 1 I

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 . The Princrpal^{Secretary, Excise Department'.Secretariat'T'S"Hyderabad} i. +ii; i-;";Iue^{rvr jsittt.ite-;um-laniitoar'I\lahabubabad Mandal'} Ivla habu babad^District.

¶47

1. The Station^{House OIfrcer,Prohibition and ExciseStation'Mahabubabad'} Mahabubabad^District'

¶48

(6)

¶49

The Superintendent, llrstrict^{Jail, at Khammam,KhammamDistrict.} 5. Two CCs to GP FOR^{PROHIBITION EXCISE} ,High^{Courtfor the State of} Telangana, at Hyderabad {OUTI

¶50