Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 854 (TS)

Gugulothu Laxmi v. State of Telangana

2025-06-10

N.TUKARAMJI

body2025
ORDER : N.TUKARAMJI, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of “WRIT OF MANDAMUS” declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in issuing the impugned Warrant in R.C.No. A/96/2025, dated 05.03.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of procedure prescribed under BNSS and consequently set aside Warrant in R.C.No. A/96/2025 dated 05.03.2025 and also direct the 4 th respondent to release the petitioner from the Sub-Jail, at Narsampet, Warangal District, and pass such other orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Mr.Mogili Anaveni, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, representing the respondent No.1. 3. 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., and this Court vide interim order dated 21.03.2025 released the petitioner from the Sub-Jail, Narsampet, Warangal District, forthwith. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar (respondent No.2) issued a warrant for the petitioner’s committal to prison, citing failure to furnish security for good behaviour. The petitioner had been directed to execute a bond with surety for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of one year. Upon the petitioner’s failure to comply, respondent No.2 treated it as a default and committed the petitioner to imprisonment for a period of one year, on the ground that she had failed to provide the requisite security for good behaviour. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that, based on information from the Excise Inspector regarding a breach of bond, the Tahsildar issued a notice of forfeiture. Thereafter, the impugned warrant was issued and the petitioner was committed to prison for failure to furnish the bond with surety. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that there is no record to indicate that any proceedings or enquiry were conducted by the Executive Magistrate prior to issuing the warrant. 6. I have carefully examined the materials on record. 7. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that there is no record to indicate that any proceedings or enquiry were conducted by the Executive Magistrate prior to issuing the warrant. 6. I have carefully examined the materials on record. 7. A close examination of the impugned warrant reveals that the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar (respondent No.2) proceeded to issue the warrant solely on the ground that the petitioner had failed to execute the bond with surety for Rs.1,00,000/- as previously directed. Notably, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain or respond before the issuance of the warrant. It must be emphasized that mere non-compliance with the direction to furnish a bond and surety does not constitute an offence, nor can it be equated to a conviction warranting imprisonment. 8. The record further shows that the warrant of imprisonment was issued on the basis of default in providing security. On 18.01.2025, a criminal case was registered under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of the Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995. On 07.02.2025, the Mandal Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar (respondent No.2) issued a notice of forfeiture of the good behaviour bond, directing the petitioner to either pay the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- or show cause within seven days as to why she should not be committed to imprisonment until the expiry of the bond period. Subsequently, on 05.03.2025, the impugned warrant was issued. However, the record does not reflect compliance with the procedure outlined under Section 141(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023, which mandates that the Magistrate must record the grounds and evidence establishing that the person bound by the bond has committed a breach. This statutory requirement implies an independent and reasoned determination by the Magistrate. In the present case, the complainant’s assertion that a crime was registered against the petitioner for possession of illicit liquor does not, in itself, amount to proof of breach of bond. Mere registration of an FIR by the Excise Police cannot be construed as a violation of bond conditions without a prior and proper inquiry. 9. For these reasons, as the materials are making out that the issuance of impugned warrant is without proper compliance of the prescribed procedure, the impugned warrant dated 05.03.2025 stands unsustainable in the facts and law. 10. Resultantly, the impugned warrant in Rc.No. A/96/2025 dated 05.03.2025 is set aside and the interim order dated 21.03.2025 releasing the petitioner from jail is made absolute. 10. Resultantly, the impugned warrant in Rc.No. A/96/2025 dated 05.03.2025 is set aside and the interim order dated 21.03.2025 releasing the petitioner from jail is made absolute. Howsoever, it is made clear that this order shall not be an impediment for the authority to conduct appropriate proceedings for default of security by strictly abiding the procedure and in accordance with the law. 11. With this observation, this Writ Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.