Disposed

Mohd Mehraj Khan @. Thanveer v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Feb 2024WP/2755/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Special Executive Magistrate's Form-32 show-cause notice for forfeiting a bind-over bond, complaining of insufficient time and lack of reasons. The Court granted the petitioner two weeks to comply with the notice's conditions and disposed of the petition without expressing opinion.

What did the court decide?

Two weeks' time granted to petitioner to comply with conditions of Form-32 notice MC.No.B/1108/2023; no costs.

Mohd Mehraj Khan @. Thanveer Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

I. PRESENT

¶5

I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PET tTr ON NO: 275s oF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

IVlohd tMehraj Khan @. Thanveer, S/o. Mohmed Rasheed Khan, Aqe 40 Years. Occ.'^pvr, SErvices, nyo. HNo.a_s-dsato,- VJt'irr"dil;;;:" RBI Quarters, Ameerpet, VTC, Kh;irtahaOaO, HyaeraOaO.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Slate of Telanoana Rep. by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, at Hyd6rabad.

¶12

2 The Speciat Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad District, at Nampally.

¶13

3 The Commissioner'of police, Hyderabad City at Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The Dy. Commissioner of police, West Zone, Hyderabad.

¶15

t The Asst. Commisdioner of police, panjagutta Divisoin, Hyderabad. I

¶16

6 The S.H.O.. Madu/angar police Station, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssue an order, direction particurarry one in the nature of wRrr oF MANDAIUUS or any other appropriate writ decrare the in high handed action of the respondent No. 2 to issue the show cause notice vide MC.No.B/1 10g12023 Dt-271o112024 with harsh ranguage and biased manner, is ilegar, arbitrary and violating the naturar justice coNSEeuENTLy to direct the respondent No. 2 to give some more time to answer to his show cause notice vlde MC.No. Bl11ogl2o23 after getting the orders in cRLp No. 835 of 2024 Dated. 2st1t2o24 from the Hon'ble High court wi appear and answer to him untir then not to take

¶19

¶20

any coercive steps, FURTHER direction to the respondent NO.2 not to make biased adjudication in MC.No B,1110812023 pending before him

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent No. 2 to give some more time to answer to his show cause notice vide MC.No. Bl11o1t2o2! after getting the orders in cRLp No. 835 of 2oz4 Dated. 251112024 from the Hon'bre High court I wi appear and answer to him untir then not to take any coercive step's pending disposal of the above writ petition. rl

¶23

Counsel for ttre^petitiJntr: SRt G L NARASTMHA RAO Counsel for the RespJntents: AGP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court -aa" tn" rJltlwing: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO.2755 OF 2024

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed questioning thc notice issued by the second respondent uide Mc.No.B/ llOS/2023, clated 27 .O1.2O24 in Form-S2 directing the petitioner to shor,v cause for forfeiting the bond executed by the petitioner, dated 16.10.2023 for violation of the bind over conclilions initiated against the petitioner in Chapter Vlll of the Codc ol Criminal Procedure. The case of the petitioncr is that thc impugned notice, dated 27.O1.2O24 was not served on tl-rc^pctilioner, but the same was affrxed on the wa[[ o[ thc house o[ t]-re^petitioner ot 28.01.2024, which shows that the^pctitioner lias to^show cause or pay the penalty amount u'ithin scven^{days otherwise} the sixth respondent is directed to capture and^producethe petitioner before the second respondent.^{The grievanceof the} petitioner is that no suff-rcient time is^{given to appezrrlreforethe} Court to explain that he^{has not violatecl atrv o[ [he t(]rms and} conditions of the bind over^proceedings.

¶29

Mr. G.L. Narasimha^{Rao, lcarneclctlt-ttrsel forthe} petitioner, vehemently contcnded that,^{as pcr itre nol it:t: issucd} to the petitioner, the time^{grantccl\'as scvcrlcl:rvs, rvhichis}

¶30

¶31

insufficient and the said action of hxing the time for seven days either for appcarance of the petitioner or for complyirrg with the terms and conditions of the bond, dated 16. lO.2O23 amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. lt is further submitted that no reasons havc been assigned for forfeiture of the bond executed by the petitioner in the notice and the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶32

This Court, without cxpressing anv opinion, as it is stated that the petitioner is not servcd with notice cxcept affxing the same on the wa[[ of the housc of the petitioner, deems it appropriate to dispose of the Wrir petition by granting time for a period of trvo (2) wecks from today to enablc the petitioner to comply with the conditior-rs imposed in Form-S2 in Mc.No.B/ 1lO8/2023, dated 2Z /28.Or.2024 issued by the second respondent.

¶33

With thc above observarions, thc Writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, i[ any, pcnding shall stzrncl closed.

¶35

SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To, II '1. The Principal Secrbtary, Ho me Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, at Hyderabad. 2. The Speciat Executive fvlagi strate, Hyderabad District, at Nampally.

¶36

i i l l

¶37

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City at Hyderabad.

¶38

The Dy. Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad.

¶39

The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Panjagufta Divisoin, Hyderabad.

¶40

The S.H.O., Madurangar Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶41

One CC to Sri G l-tNarasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

Two CCs to GP for Home, Hrgh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶43

Two CD Copies

TJ GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210212A24

ORDER

*u
c
o
2i
i;)

WP.No.2755 of 2024

i I t I DrsPostNG oF irHe wnrr PETIT|ON I I WITHOUT COSTS.

¶56

L! c)6' ta.*

Mohd Mehraj Khan @. Thanveer v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Mehraj Khan @. Thanveer 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

Musipetla Sreedhar Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Shri.Gone Jagadishwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.B.Ratan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Soma Shiva Vs The State of Telangana

Rathod Eeramma, Vs The State of Telangana

Goodemu Sreenu Vs The State of Telangana