Allowed¶8

GandrakotaVijaya v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Apr 2025CRLP/5088/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment; breach of bond for good behaviour; Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS 2023; Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar forfeiture proceedings; improper service of forfeiture notice; mere registration of COR not conclusive of breach; illicit liquor possession and trading; commitment to prison set aside; release forthwith; Warangal; Geesugonda Mandal; M.C.No.C4/104/2024; Criminal Petition No.5088 of 2025; Justice N. Tukaramji; decided 11.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar, Geesugonda Mandal set aside; petitioner to be set at liberty; 4th respondent, Superintendent of District Prison for Woman, Narsampet, directed to release the petitioner forthwith. ¶8

GandrakotaVijaya Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings/order dated 22.10.2024 of the Executive Magistrate committing the petitioner to prison for breach of the bond for good behaviour, without opportunity of hearing/explanation and based merely on registration of a crime, are tenable and liable to be quashed.

¶4

Court's answer

Though the record showed notice as served, the reference column indicated the petitioner was not available, so recording of service of the forfeiture notice on the petitioner was not proper.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Mere allegation of commission of an offence (registration of COR) cannot be taken as conclusive that the petitioner/accused has committed breach of bond, unless the guilt/charge of the offence has been proved before the competent Court.

¶7

Key takeaways

The conclusion drawn by the Executive Magistrate for forfeiture of the bond is untenable and unsustainable.ratio¶7
The authority would be at liberty to take steps, if required, at appropriate stage in accordance with law.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 seeking quashment of proceedings in M.C.No.C4/104/2024 dated 22.10.2024 of the Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District, whereby the petitioner was committed to prison under warrant for breach of a two-year bond for good behaviour of Rs.2,00,000/- with surety, executed under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C., following a Prohibition and Excise SHO report dated 07.04.2025 on registration of COR alleging possession and trading of illicit liquor. Held: (i) though notice was recorded as served, the reference column showed the petitioner not available, so service of the forfeiture notice was not properly recorded; (ii) mere allegation/registration of an offence cannot be taken as conclusive of breach of bond unless the guilt/charge is proved before the competent Court; accordingly the conclusion for forfeiture of bond was untenable and unsustainable. Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to be released forthwith; authority left at liberty to take steps at appropriate stage in accordance with law.

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5088 of 2025

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking quashment of the proceedings in M.C.No.C4/104/2024, dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District, against the petitioner.

¶5

Heard Mr.Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

¶6

In the impugned proceedings, the petitioner, has been committed to prison under a warrant for breach of bond for good behaviour executed under Section 122 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been committed to prison without there being an opportunity of explanation/hearing taken into custody by executing the warrant on 07.04.2025. Further, pleaded that mere registration of crime, without there being any conclusive findings, committing the petitioner on the ground of breach of bond is untenable. Furthermore pleaded that this Court, having considered the cases of the other

¶8

¶9

petitioners who were in similar stand had quashed the proceedings for not providing the due opportunity and in absence of any conclusive material as to breach of bond. Thus prayed for interference and quashment of the proceedings.

¶10

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that Executive Magistrate upon following due procedure had issued the warrant upon registration of COR and taking the report of the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station dated 07.04.2025 into account the petitioner to prison for breach of bond.

¶11

I have perused the materials on record.

¶12

The petitioner is not disputing the fact of execution of bond over good behaviour for a period of two years for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- , with a surety, before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Geesugonda. Further, as per the report of the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, dated 07.04.2025, the registration of COR against the petitioner alleging possession and trading of illicit liquor. Basing on such report, Tahsildar and Executive Mandal Magistrate proceeded with the notice for forfeiture of bond for good behaviour. Though as per record notice was served, the reference column is making out that the petitioner was not available, as such, recording of service of notice on the petitioner is found not proper. That apart earlier this Court has taken the view that mere allegation of commission of offence cannot

¶13

¶14

be taken as conclusive to hold that the petitioner/accused has committed breach of bond, unless the guilt/charge of the offence has been proved before the competent Court. In that view, the conclusion drawn by the Executive Magistrate for forfeiture of bond is untenable and unsustainable.

¶15

For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar, Geesugonda Mandal, is hereby set aside. However, it is needless to say that, the authority would be at liberty to take steps, if required, at appropriate stage in accordance with law.

¶16

As the impugned order/warrant is set aside, the petitioner shall be set at liberty. The 4^th -respondent, Superintendent of District Prison for Woman, at Narsampet, Warangal District, is directed to release the petitioner forthwith.

¶17