Saleem vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Saleem, filed a Criminal Petition under Section 483(1)(B) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to relax or modify a condition imposed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The condition, passed on 05.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.2785 of 2025 concerning Crime No.AirCus/49/Adjn/65/2025-AIU-C, required the petitioner to appear before the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) on alternative Wednesdays between 11:00 AM and 01:00 PM after his release on bail, until June 2026 or the filing of the charge sheet, whichever was earlier. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was already appearing before the respondent authorities as ordered and therefore prayed for relaxation of this condition.

Held

The High Court held that the condition imposed against the petitioner in the order dated 05.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2785 of 2025, requiring him to appear before the respondent authorities/Investigating Authority on alternative Wednesdays, should be relaxed/modified. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that he was already appearing before the respondent authorities as ordered by the trial court. The Court found merit in the prayer for relaxation. The operative direction was to relax/modify the condition and direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent authorities/Investigating Authority as and when required. All other conditions imposed by the trial court were to remain unaltered. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed on the petitioner to appear before the concerned SHO on alternative Wednesdays between 11:00 AM and 01:00 PM after his release on bail, until June 2026 or the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier, should be relaxed or modified, in light of the petitioner's compliance with the order and his prayer for relaxation. The petitioner contended that he has been appearing before the respondent authorities/Investigating Authority as directed by the trial court and therefore prayed for the relaxation of the said condition. The respondent, the State of Telangana and the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Air Intelligence Unit (AIU), did not record any specific arguments against the relaxation in the judgment. The judgment does not explicitly mention any arguments from the respondent's side regarding the specific condition being challenged.