Disposed

Deekonda Bhaskar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Apr 2025CRLP/5040/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused Nos. 1 to 6 in a caste-atrocity trial sought quashing proceedings but instead requested dispensation from personal appearance due to occupational hardship. The court dispensed with their in-person attendance, requiring appearance through counsel at every adjournment and physical presence when directed.

What did the court decide?

Personal appearance of accused Nos. 1-6 dispensed with, subject to counsel's attendance on every adjournment and presence as directed by the trial court.

Deekonda Bhaskar Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5040 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Deekonda Bhaskar, S/o Eshwaraiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Politician Rl/o H No.9-47 Narayanaraopet, Siddipet District.

¶8

ltAacha Venugopal Reddy, S/o Macha Bhogareddy, Aged about 49 years Occ. Business, Ri./o H. No. 1-3- 1 19, Paripally Street Siddipet, Siddipet District

¶9

Govindharam Ravi, S/o Yadaiah, Aged about 32 years, H No. 2-12, Vill Venkatapur Mdl Nangunur, Siddipet District.

¶10

Kankati Naveen Goud, S/o Ramaswamy, Aged about 26 years R/o H No. 2-2126, Ambedkar Nagar, Siddipet District.

¶11

Sayannagari Likith, S/o Sundar, Aged about 28 years, Rl/o H No. 10-1 8'l Subhash Nagar, Prashanth Nagar, Siddipet, Siddipet District, P1 to P5 Occ. Politician.

¶12

Kalakuntla Sheshu Kumar Sheshu, S/o Venkata Narasimma Chary Aged about 35 years R/o H No. 18-'15-1 41111 Thaduri Balagoud nagar, Siddipet Siddipet District, Occ. PA to MLA Siddipet.

¶13

..,PETITIONER/ACCUSED^.I TO 6

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana,, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Through S.H.O P.S.Siddipet-l town, High court for the state of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

¶16

Erra Mahendar, S/o tVlathadaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Ambedkar Nagar Siddipet, Sidclipet District, Telangana State.

¶17

...RESPON DENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in SC.SPL No. 116 OF 2024 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 - cum - lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy in connection with FIR No.41512024, dated 19/08/2024 of Siddipet-l town Police Station for the alleged offence U/S 115(2),352,351(2) R/w 3(5) BNS and U/s 3(1XrXs),3(2)(va) SCs and STs POA Amendment Act-2015 is concerned and Ouash the Same in the interest of justice

¶19

¶20

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that^{irl the circumstances} stated in the fi/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the High Court may} be pleased to stay of all further^proceedtngs in SC.SPL^{No. '1 16 OF 2024 on the} file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs^{(POA)Act, 1989-} cum - lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangaredc^{y in connection with} FIR No.415/2024, dated 1910812024 of Siddipet-l town^{Police Station for the} alleged offence U/S 115(2), 352,351(2) R/w 3(5) BNS Bs^U/s 3(1XrXs),^3(2Xva) SCs 8. STs POA Amendment Act-2015 is concerned,^{pending disposalof the} above Criminal Petition in the interest of^justice

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^{Sri Ramavaram} Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and^{the rublicProsecutoron} behalf of the Respondent No.1 None appeared for^{Responde,nt No. 2}

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

I l

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTIGE N. TUKARAMJI

¶27

c RIMINAL PETITION No.5040 of 2025

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This petition is filed seeking^quashment of the^{proceedingsin} SC. SPL. No.116 of 2024^pending on^{the file of the Special Judge for} Trial of offences under SCs & STs^{(POA) Act, 1989 -cum- lll Additional} District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy,^againstthe petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6.

¶30

Heard Ms. Sneha Bachanaboina,^{learnedcounsel representing} Mr.R.Chandrashekar Reddy, learned^{counsel forpetitioners,} It/r.Jithender Rao Veeramalla,^{learned Additional Public Prosecutor} appearing for the respondent^{No.1 -State.}

¶31

The petitioners are arrayed^{as accused Nos.lto 6 in SC SPL} No.1'16 of 2024 facing accusation^{under Sections115 (2),352 and351} (2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya^{Sanhita,2023 and} Sections S(tXrXs) and^{3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)AmendmentAct,} 2015.

¶32

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners would submit that though the} petitioners got a strong case even for quashment, as they^are determined to see the process through, the^{insistence for their} presence is causing severe difficulty in^pursuing their occupations.

¶33

Therefore, prayed for dispensing their personal ap,pearance in the proceedings, unless presence in person is required and such direction would redress their grievance

¶34

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no specific objection for the prayer, however pleaded f,rr a direction for appearance of the petitioners on the material stages in the proceedings.

¶35

Having regard to the submissions, subject t,t the petitioners appearance through their counsel on every adjournment and the petitioners presence as and when directed by the Co trt, the in-person presence of the petitioners in the proceedings of the SC SPL No.1'16 of 2024 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of offr:nces under SCs & STs (POA) Act,'l 989 -cum- lll Additional Distri:t and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, is dispensed with. Additionally i is specified that any lapse in abiding the above conditions would render this order ineffective

¶36

7 With this direction, this Criminal Petition is dispcsed of.

¶37

To,

¶38

¶39