Disposed

Smt. Atiya Sultana v. The Director General Of police and 5 others

Telangana HC18 Nov 2025WP/44685/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed seeking direction to execute a non-bailable warrant against a respondent accused residing abroad. While acknowledging that steps like passport impounding were initiated, the Court directed police to expedite efforts to secure the accused's physical presence.

What did the court decide?

The respondent police authorities were directed to continue and expedite all necessary steps to secure the physical presence of respondent No. 7 before the learned Magistrate.

Smt. Atiya Sultana Vs The Director General Of police and 5… — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217l

¶2

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

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 44685 OF 2022

¶8

Between

¶9

Smt. Atiya Sultana, W/o, Mohammaed Jabbar Hussain, aged 28^years, Occu. Housewife, Fl/o, H.No.'19-2-18211194, Ramnaspura, lTl colony, Zoo^patk, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Director General of police, Telangana State, Hyderabad

¶13

2 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad.

¶14

a The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime station, Detective Department, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The lnspector of Police, Womens Police Station, South zone, Hyderabad. XV Additional Chief lMetropolitan Magistrate court, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶16

(. Respondent No.5 is deleted as per C.O dt:.28-12-20221

¶17

6 The Regional Passport Officer, Telangana, at Secunderabad.

¶18

7 l/ohhammed Jabbar Hussian, S/o, I\rlohammed Taher Hussian, Aged about 32 years, Occu: Radiograppher (Soudi Arabia), H-No. 4-14-57, Hassan Nagar, Hyderabad, presently residing at AR RAYYAN, Building No. 7660, ZIP Code-,23741 Additional No. 3295, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

¶19

(*Respondent No.7 is impleaded as per C.O.dt: 11-07-2023, in l.A. No. of 2023l.

¶20

..RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to rssue a Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to 6 to execute Non-Bailable^Warrant

¶22

issued by XV Additional Chief l\4etropolrtan Magistrate CcrL 1, Hyderabad in CC No.^'1 73 of 201 8

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r rumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to issue a direction to the respondents to file status report of t1 l case in CC No.173 o'f 2O18 on the file of XV Additional Chief tt4etropolit: I rlagistrate Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of main Writ petition

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G SURESH GOUD

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI D. PRADEEP \GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI R. MANGULAL

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.7:-----

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI}

¶30

WRIT P ETITION No.44685 OF²⁰²²

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed with the^{following relief}

¶33

''lssue a writ. order or a dtectiort. pafticularly one nt the nature of Martdamus direcling^respondent No 1 to 6 to execLie^{Non-bailablewarrant ssued} by XV Additional Chief^{ly'letropolitan lvlaEstrate} Courl. Hyderabad in C.C^No.173 of^2018.

¶34

Heard IVlr. G. Suresh Goud,^{learned Counselfor the} petitioner, N/lr. D Pradeep, learned Assistant^{Government Pleader} for Home appearing for^{respondent Nos.1to 4 and R. Mangulal,} learned Counsel appearing^{for respondentNo.6}

¶35

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submitsthat respondent} Nos. 1 to 6 have failed to execute^{the non-bailable warrantissued} against the accused/respondent No^{7 in C.C. No.'173 of 2018 on} the file of the learned^{XV Additional ChiefMetropolitan} lVlagistrate, Hyderabad.^{Hence, the present petition has been filed} seeking an appropriate^direction to^{the respondent police} authorities to take expeditious^{stepsto securethe presence of} respondent No. 7 in the said^{criminal proceedings}

¶36

¶37

4.'1 . Learned Assistant Government Pleader for [1 lme submits

¶38

that, during the pendency of the Calendar Case pr>ceedings, a non-bailable warrant (NBW) was indeed isr; red against respondent No. 7, and all possible measures have ::en taken by the police authoritres to secure his presence in ac: >rdance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Crimir i I Procedure, 1973 (Cr P.C.)

¶39

4 2. He further submits that, pursuant to the c: rmunication addressed by the lnspector of Police, WPS liouth Zone, Hyderabad, the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabz d. vide letter dated 10 11.2025, informed that the Consulate GeI >ral of India. Jeddah has initiated impounding proceedings respect of Passport No. S3102449 held by respondent \o 7 This, according to the learned Assistant Governme rt Pleader, demonstrates that appropriate and effective measur€ s have been taken by the respondent police authorities to ensure the appearance of the accused before the trial CoL r lt is thus contended that the allegation of inaction or lack o liligence on the part of the police authorities is unfounded, anc re prays for dismissal of the writ petition

¶40

¶41

I have^perused the material available on record.

¶42

Having regard to the grievance of the^petitioner that the respondent police authorities have not taken sufficient steps to secure the presence of respondent No. 7 in C.C. No. 113 of 2018, and keeping in view the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader as to the sleps already taken, including the initiation of proceedings for impounding the passport of the accused to facilitate his appearance. it is evident that the respondent police authorities have undertaken effective measures in accordance with the^{prescribed procedure} to secure the presence of the accused before the trial Court

¶43

However, considering that the execution of the warrant and production of the accused are essential for the progress of the trial, the respondent police authorities are directed to continue and expedite all necessary steps to secure the^{physical presence} of respondent No.7 before the learned Magistrate, strictly in accordance with law and due process

¶44

¶45

B. With the above direction, this petition is disp:;ed of. There

¶46

shall be no order as to costs

¶47

lVliscellaneous petitions, if an_v, pending in thr:^retition, shall

¶48

stand closed

¶49

SD,.-fr/IJAYA^LAKSHMI o*.l,:]:,o'1111* ___,.; 2

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER ,\

To,

1 The Director General^{of police,Telangana State, Hyderilrad}

¶54

2 TheCommissionerofPolice,Hyderabad'BasheerBagtr.Hyderabad' 3 The Deputy^{Commissioner of Police, CentralCrirn )station'Detective} Department, HYderabad

¶55

4 The lnspector^{of Police, Womens Police Station, Southz rne' Hyderabad'}

¶56

C The Regional Passport^{Officer, Telanganaat Secundet: cad'}

¶57

6 One CC to SRl.^{G SURESH GOUD, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶58

7 One CC to SRI^{R. IMANGULAL,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶59

8 TwoCCstoGPFoRHoIME,HighCourtfortheStater>Telangana'[oUTl

¶60

I Two CD Copies

PVL

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811112025

ORDER

WP.No.44685 of 2022

:-"---_'- -:--
'. -i l'il: S :',-
j,,.'
i'
l'.,i-
i!
[.] l::; i6p
'1
,1

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶68

WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

\llN'

Smt. Atiya Sultana v. The Director General Of police and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Atiya Sultana v. The Director General Of police and 5 others

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

Smt Immadi Naga Prasanna Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Manish Kumar Jha Vs The State of Telangana

Sunkari Pushpamma Vs The State of Telangana

Ch Sudhakar Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Gandhi Sanjiva Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana.

M/s.Shanta Sriram Constructions, Vs The State of Telangana