[ 3303 ] IN THE H'GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12508 OF 2026 Between: 1. Bharathbai Bikkubai Kodiyatar, S/o Bikkubhai, Wrongly shown FIR as Bharath Bikku Padithan age-21 years,Occu-Lorry Driver, Fl/o Post- Railway station, Barvanesh Ranavav, Porbandar Gujarath-360560 2. Kodiyatar Devabhai, s/o Sarmanabhai Wrongly shown in F I R as Deva, Age-Barvanesh 29 years, Occu- lorry cleaner Rl/o Post- Railway station, Ranavav,Porbandar Gujarath-360560 ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 and 2 AND Public 1. The State of Telangana, (S.H.O.Pulkal Police station) Rep.by Prosecutor, High of Judicature at Hyderabad 2. Veeresham.A., s/o not mentioned in FlR, Age-major,Occu-Deputy Tahasildar,(CS), Pulkal, 0/0 District Civil Supplies Office (CS), Sangareddy district. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS No.1 and 2 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 Quash the proceedings against the petitioners Nos.1 & 2 herein in FIR NO. 99 of 2026, dated-11-7-2026 on the flle of S.HO.P.S. Pulkal, Sangareddy district. l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

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 stay all further proceedings against the of petitioners/accused Nos. 1 & 2 in FIR NO.99 of 2026, dated-1 1-7-2026 on the file of S.HO.P.S.Pulkal, Sangareddy district and be pleased. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DASI RAMESH, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER tN't HL, Iu(;il C'Ot Rt FOR I'H]t S'tA't'L OF 't'El_ANCANA \-I'I{YDt]R,,\I}AI) 1'IIE IIONoI R.\I}L[. SRI ,IL STICE J.SREENIVAS RAO ( Rl\ll\.\1. l'].TIl'lO\ \o.12508 of 2026 l)atc: l -1.0ti.2026 Betu een []harlthbai tlikkrrE,:Li Kodir atrrr and anotht'r. ...1)ctrrione ls \ccu,scd \os. I and l \\t) ['h.' Statr' ol' [-elansana and another Respondents oRt)t_R:

lhis ( rinrinirl I)ctition has bccn lilcd under Section 528 ol thc Ilhanrtir a \agar-ik >r-rlal.sha Sanhita, 102-) by the petitioners. who lvere arrrtr ccl :ts uccLr\cLl \rr:. I .rrrtl 1. :ccl.,ing to tlulsh thc prclcccclings It I: 1.R. \o 99 o1 10.16. ()n rhe lllc o1'thc Station House (l1ficer'. I,ulkal Policc Station. Sangarccldr I)istrict, lor the- ollences punishable under 'thcSe-ctiort llll(Jt rrl hc Ilharltira \rinl Sanltita. t0l3 rlirl short Il\S t antl Sccti()n ol thr-- I ssc'ntill ( ontntodities r\ct. 19,s5 ,,O, rnnr, theI ( ..\ct ) 2 2. Heard Mr. Dasi Ramesh, lcarned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor lor respondent Nos. I and 2 3. Learned counsel lcrr the petitioners subrnitled that the petitioners have no1 comrr.ritted any oll'ence and lrave been lalsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations levelled in the cornplaint, the ingrcdicnts ol thc oll'ence undcr Section 318(4) ol' thc BNS and Section 7 of the E.C. Act are not attracted on the ground that -fhethe petitioners had purchased the PDS rice fron.r the card holders. issue raised in this Crinrinal l)etition is squarclv covered by the order passed by this (-our1 in Cll.l). No.9638 o1 1016 dated 27.07.2026 Hence, continuation of the proceedings againsL the petitioners is a clear abusc of the process of law

4. Per contra. the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have not placed any material to show that they have 'I'hepurchased the PDS rice fionr the card holders. police seized the 'lvehicle when thel are transportin-u thc rice 1r'onr elan-eana to Gu.larat Whether the petitioners purchased the PDS rice fiom the card holders 3 or li'onr an\ othe r s()urcc. thc sallc \\ ill be re vcaled during the course of inr esti gation. r.sr)ec ial l,\ rhc i rrr esti gation is under- progress 5 II.' tirnhcr' :LrLrnrirrccl thaL thc olli,nces lerelled asainsr thc pclltroncts iI fe pLrnisltabl,-. rr ith imprisonment ol'less than seven years and thc Intestigarino Olllcer uill fbllor,, rhe due procedure AS . contcmplatcd Lrrrdc Sce tion l5(l ) o I' thc []haratila \agarik Suraksha Sanhita. l0ll tlirr shorr. 'tlNSS') lncl tht' LLLridclincs issr.rcd by the \pe\ ('our1 in 4rnesh h'umur lls. Stote oJ. Bihort t{ence the petitioncrs are nor .:ntitlccl to seck (lLlashing 01'the proccedings at this stauc

6. 'f his C'oLir-t consideled the rir al submissions made by the rcspccti\ c partics arrd pr'ruscd the material available on record. The spl'ci1rc casc ol' I)ro:,L.cLrtion i-s thlrt thc nctitioncr.s har., not placccl an\ iota o1'rnaterial ttr slrou that thc l)l)S ricc was purchased t'rom the card holdc'rs or- in any ot re.r rnoclr-.. l:r'c-n according to the leamed counsel tbl tlrc pctitiortcr':. llrc lictitionc'r's har e 191 pulchusr-cl thc ricc liorn the cald holclers. \\ hcther thc pctitioncrs har,c purchased the pDS rice ttonr thc card ltolder'. ol in rnr other source. IS a disputed question of tlcr' rr \ iL-\\ ol'trrc :.r.c- trrt o^rc. rcriccr r-rpon bv thc. learned counsei rlUll)ll\r ( 4 fbr the petitioners in Crl.P.No.9638 ol 1016 dated 27.07.2026 is not applicable to the lacts and circumstances ol the case on the ground that prosecution is that thein the said case, the specific casc of the petitioners therein had purchascd thc PDS ricc fiorr the card holders However, the offences levelled against the petitioners are pun isha ble thewith imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to learned Additional Public Prosecr-rtor. thc Investigating Officer wants to follow the due procedure AS contemplated under Section 35(3 ) ol the BNSS

7. In r icu o1' thc sanrc. thc Invcstigating Olficer is directed to scrupulously lollow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex '['heCourt in Arnesh Kumar (sLrpra). petitioncrs shall cooperate with the invcstigation. lt is necdless to mention tliat the petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievance betbre the Investigating OIlrcer by raising all thc pleas are arailable to thcnr and they are also "rhich cntitlcd to subrnit tlrc docurncnts, which are in their custody, pursuant to the notice going to be issued by the Investigating Officer under Section 35(3) olthc BNSS J 8. \\'ith thc ahor c clilcctions. the Criminal petition is disposed of. \'lisce Ilrncor,rs applie irtions. pcndine il'anr. shall stand closc.d SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Judicial l\,4agistrate of First Class, Andol at Jogipet. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, pulkal, Sangareddy district. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI DASI RAMESH Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies IPK/GNK 4., yv- HIGH COURT DATED: 131081202G orORDER TEi4/,(,9 7 r\s \'.)'*CRLP.No.12508 ot 2026 + q i! $ \\ 4e IH + CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF ( C/U/p

[ 3303 ] IN THE H'GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12508 OF 2026 Between: 1. Bharathbai Bikkubai Kodiyatar, S/o Bikkubhai, Wrongly shown FIR as Bharath Bikku Padithan age-21 years,Occu-Lorry Driver, Fl/o Post- Railway station, Barvanesh Ranavav, Porbandar Gujarath-360560 2. Kodiyatar Devabhai, s/o Sarmanabhai Wrongly shown in F I R as Deva, Age-Barvanesh 29 years, Occu- lorry cleaner Rl/o Post- Railway station, Ranavav,Porbandar Gujarath-360560 ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 and 2 AND Public 1. The State of Telangana, (S.H.O.Pulkal Police station) Rep.by Prosecutor, High of Judicature at Hyderabad 2. Veeresham.A., s/o not mentioned in FlR, Age-major,Occu-Deputy Tahasildar,(CS), Pulkal, 0/0 District Civil Supplies Office (CS), Sangareddy district. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS No.1 and 2 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 Quash the proceedings against the petitioners Nos.1 & 2 herein in FIR NO. 99 of 2026, dated-11-7-2026 on the flle of S.HO.P.S. Pulkal, Sangareddy district. l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

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 stay all further proceedings against the of petitioners/accused Nos. 1 & 2 in FIR NO.99 of 2026, dated-1 1-7-2026 on the file of S.HO.P.S.Pulkal, Sangareddy district and be pleased. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DASI RAMESH, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER tN't HL, Iu(;il C'Ot Rt FOR I'H]t S'tA't'L OF 't'El_ANCANA \-I'I{YDt]R,,\I}AI) 1'IIE IIONoI R.\I}L[. SRI ,IL STICE J.SREENIVAS RAO ( Rl\ll\.\1. l'].TIl'lO\ \o.12508 of 2026 l)atc: l -1.0ti.2026 Betu een []harlthbai tlikkrrE,:Li Kodir atrrr and anotht'r. ...1)ctrrione ls \ccu,scd \os. I and l \\t) ['h.' Statr' ol' [-elansana and another Respondents oRt)t_R:

lhis ( rinrinirl I)ctition has bccn lilcd under Section 528 ol thc Ilhanrtir a \agar-ik >r-rlal.sha Sanhita, 102-) by the petitioners. who lvere arrrtr ccl :ts uccLr\cLl \rr:. I .rrrtl 1. :ccl.,ing to tlulsh thc prclcccclings It I: 1.R. \o 99 o1 10.16. ()n rhe lllc o1'thc Station House (l1ficer'. I,ulkal Policc Station. Sangarccldr I)istrict, lor the- ollences punishable under 'thcSe-ctiort llll(Jt rrl hc Ilharltira \rinl Sanltita. t0l3 rlirl short Il\S t antl Sccti()n ol thr-- I ssc'ntill ( ontntodities r\ct. 19,s5 ,,O, rnnr, theI ( ..\ct ) 2 2. Heard Mr. Dasi Ramesh, lcarned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor lor respondent Nos. I and 2 3. Learned counsel lcrr the petitioners subrnitled that the petitioners have no1 comrr.ritted any oll'ence and lrave been lalsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations levelled in the cornplaint, the ingrcdicnts ol thc oll'ence undcr Section 318(4) ol' thc BNS and Section 7 of the E.C. Act are not attracted on the ground that -fhethe petitioners had purchased the PDS rice fron.r the card holders. issue raised in this Crinrinal l)etition is squarclv covered by the order passed by this (-our1 in Cll.l). No.9638 o1 1016 dated 27.07.2026 Hence, continuation of the proceedings againsL the petitioners is a clear abusc of the process of law

4. Per contra. the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have not placed any material to show that they have 'I'hepurchased the PDS rice fionr the card holders. police seized the 'lvehicle when thel are transportin-u thc rice 1r'onr elan-eana to Gu.larat Whether the petitioners purchased the PDS rice fiom the card holders 3 or li'onr an\ othe r s()urcc. thc sallc \\ ill be re vcaled during the course of inr esti gation. r.sr)ec ial l,\ rhc i rrr esti gation is under- progress 5 II.' tirnhcr' :LrLrnrirrccl thaL thc olli,nces lerelled asainsr thc pclltroncts iI fe pLrnisltabl,-. rr ith imprisonment ol'less than seven years and thc Intestigarino Olllcer uill fbllor,, rhe due procedure AS . contcmplatcd Lrrrdc Sce tion l5(l ) o I' thc []haratila \agarik Suraksha Sanhita. l0ll tlirr shorr. 'tlNSS') lncl tht' LLLridclincs issr.rcd by the \pe\ ('our1 in 4rnesh h'umur lls. Stote oJ. Bihort t{ence the petitioncrs are nor .:ntitlccl to seck (lLlashing 01'the proccedings at this stauc

6. 'f his C'oLir-t consideled the rir al submissions made by the rcspccti\ c partics arrd pr'ruscd the material available on record. The spl'ci1rc casc ol' I)ro:,L.cLrtion i-s thlrt thc nctitioncr.s har., not placccl an\ iota o1'rnaterial ttr slrou that thc l)l)S ricc was purchased t'rom the card holdc'rs or- in any ot re.r rnoclr-.. l:r'c-n according to the leamed counsel tbl tlrc pctitiortcr':. llrc lictitionc'r's har e 191 pulchusr-cl thc ricc liorn the cald holclers. \\ hcther thc pctitioncrs har,c purchased the pDS rice ttonr thc card ltolder'. ol in rnr other source. IS a disputed question of tlcr' rr \ iL-\\ ol'trrc :.r.c- trrt o^rc. rcriccr r-rpon bv thc. learned counsei rlUll)ll\r ( 4 fbr the petitioners in Crl.P.No.9638 ol 1016 dated 27.07.2026 is not applicable to the lacts and circumstances ol the case on the ground that prosecution is that thein the said case, the specific casc of the petitioners therein had purchascd thc PDS ricc fiorr the card holders However, the offences levelled against the petitioners are pun isha ble thewith imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to learned Additional Public Prosecr-rtor. thc Investigating Officer wants to follow the due procedure AS contemplated under Section 35(3 ) ol the BNSS

7. In r icu o1' thc sanrc. thc Invcstigating Olficer is directed to scrupulously lollow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex '['heCourt in Arnesh Kumar (sLrpra). petitioncrs shall cooperate with the invcstigation. lt is necdless to mention tliat the petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievance betbre the Investigating OIlrcer by raising all thc pleas are arailable to thcnr and they are also "rhich cntitlcd to subrnit tlrc docurncnts, which are in their custody, pursuant to the notice going to be issued by the Investigating Officer under Section 35(3) olthc BNSS J 8. \\'ith thc ahor c clilcctions. the Criminal petition is disposed of. \'lisce Ilrncor,rs applie irtions. pcndine il'anr. shall stand closc.d SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Judicial l\,4agistrate of First Class, Andol at Jogipet. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, pulkal, Sangareddy district. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI DASI RAMESH Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies IPK/GNK 4., yv- HIGH COURT DATED: 131081202G orORDER TEi4/,(,9 7 r\s \'.)'*CRLP.No.12508 ot 2026 + q i! $ \\ 4e IH + CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF ( C/U/p