Telangana High Court Cautions Courts on Issuing NBWs

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court cautioned magistrates and trial courts to be careful in ordering non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against accused and asked them to apply their mind instead of blindly following the submissions of the investigation agencies or authorities.

Justice N. Tukaramji of the High Court clarified that NBWs were to be issued as a measure of last resort, solely for the purpose of securing the presence of the accused.

The judge suggested that magistrates and trial courts follow the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court in ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’, wherein the court categorised offences and prescribed the procedure to be followed. According to these guidelines, the court ought first to have issued summons; if those were not complied with, then a bailable warrant; and only if the accused thereafter evaded the process could a non-bailable warrant be issued.

The judge also clarified that recall of NBW was not an ordinary and routine manner, by relying on orders passed in other cases involving different factual circumstances. The court said that such practice of recall was not acceptable. As a general rule, a petition seeking recall of NBWs should be filed in the physical presence of the accused.

In exceptional situations, where the accused is unable to appear in person due to unavoidable and compelling circumstances, and the court concerned is satisfied of the bona fides of such reasons, may consider an application for recall of NBWs even in the absence of the accused

Justice N. Tukaramji was dealing with a petition filed by advocate J. Chandra Lekha and her father who requested recall of an NBW dated 30.12.2024 issued against them by the trial court. A criminal case filed by the police listed four accused; the petitioner and her father were the third and fourth accused.

The investigating agency chose to serve notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS only on the first two accused and no notice was ever served upon the petitioners. It was contended that the trial court, without considering this crucial aspect, proceeded to issue NBWs against the petitioners. In spite of the alleged offences being punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the magistrate issued NBWs upon the submissions of the investigating officer. The revisional court at the district level upheld the issuance of NBWs.

The sole basis recorded for issuing NBWs was that the petitioners were shown as absconding since the filing of the chargesheet. There was no indication that the trial court made any independent assessment of the facts and circumstances before directing the issuance of NBWs, except considering the inputs or submissions of the investigative agency.

Justice Tukaram observed that in absence of a demonstrated and urgent requirement, the mere fact that the investigating agency has shown the accused as absconding cannot, by itself, justify the magistrate’s order issuing NBWs.

The judge said that it is pertinent to clarify that before resorting to coercive measures, the magistrate was duty-bound to carefully examine the materials produced by the investigating agency, including the nature of the process issued, the allegations made, and the evidence collected. An independent judicial assessment must be undertaken by the magistrate to determine whether the presence or custody of the accused is necessary.

High Court Questions Hyderabad Police on Hookah Raids

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court questioned the Hyderabad police on the basis of which they were lodging criminal cases against organisers of hookah centres by alleging that using a hookah was hazardous to human health. The court questioned the police how they could come to the conclusion without lab reports stating that the substances and flavours provided to customers were unhealthy.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was dealing a petition filed by organisers of hookah centres at Guttala Begumpet who asked for quashing of a criminal case lodged against them. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the police were acting on a whims and not following the provisions of law before lodging cases.

The judge inquired with government counsel whether the police had sent the substances collected in the particular hookah centre to a lab to check whether they contained any hazardous or prohibited material. When the government counsel replied in the negative, the judge posed a series of questions to the police.

Directing the police to submit the details of lab examination reports on the substances seized or collected from hookah centres, the court adjourned the matter to August 26.

SC/ST Act Not Applicable in Private Disputes, Telangana High Court Rules

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court made it clear that unless there was material to indicate that the alleged incident occurred in a public place or in public view, the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be invoked.

Sections 3(1)(r) targets intentional insults or intimidation of an SC/ST member in a public place with the intent to humiliate, and Section 3(1)(s) prohibits the use of abusive language or actions.

Justice E.V. Venugopal said that the insult or intimidation must occur in public view and that the occurrence must be in public and aimed at humiliating the complainant on the basis of caste and it must be witnessed by an independent person.

If the allegations of insulting caste are part of domestic discord between the parties and related to matrimonial disputes, the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, will not attract, Justice Venugopal explained.

The judge was dealing with the petition filed by Nirupama Dadi and her father, who against SC/ST (POA) Act case was filed on the complaint of her husband K. Kranthi Kiran. The couple had married on January 17, 2014; the complainant belongs to the Mala (Scheduled Caste) group and Nirupama belongs to the Kapu community. A few days after the marriage, conflicts arose and they agreed for mutual divorce.

A dispute arose over joint assets and money. Meanwhile, Kiran filed a complaint before the police against Nirupama and her father, stating that their family humiliated him over his caste, calling him derogatory names and burnt his clothes at their home. He also furnished WhatsApp messages sent by Nirupama insisting on divorce, citing “cultural differences” mostly related to caste issues. Based on it, police registered the case and trial before the district court is going on.

Meanwhile, Nirupama and her father approached the High Court seeking quash of the case. The court considered that the alleged offence dated back to 2018, whereas the email containing specific allegations against the petitioner was sent almost 10 months later. The delay in making such allegations casts doubt on their veracity. Hence quashed the case against petitioners.