HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MAIN CASE: CRL.P.No.15270 of 2024

PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
13.12.2024 JS, J
I.A.No.1 of 2024
This Interlocutory Application has been
filed by petitioner-accused No.11 seeking stay
of all further proceedings in F.I.R.No.376 of
2024 dated 05.12.2024 on the file of the
Station House Officer, Chikkadpally Police
Station, Hyderabad District registered for the
offences under Sections 105, 118(1) read with
3(5) of BNS.

Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri G. Ashok
Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner as well
as Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public
Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 and
perused the record.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioner submitted the petitioner is a
distinguished actor in Indian Film Industry
renowned for his exemplary contributions to
the Telugu Cinema. The release of film
 2

‘Pushpa2’ became highly anticipated in the

Indian Film Industry in view of stupendous
success of film ‘Pushpa’ in the year 2021.
When the petitioner attended the screening of
‘Pushpa2’ at Sandhya 70 MM Theatre, with
prior intimation for providing security to the
theatre management and the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Chikkadpally on
02.12.2024 to prevent any untoward incident,
but due to tragically uncontrollable surge of
crowd led to the unfortunate incident of
demise of wife of respondent No.2 and injuries
to his child. It is alleged that the wife and son
of respondent No.2 who were seated in the
lower balcony of theatre hall, experienced
severe difficulty in breathing due to the
overcrowding and suffocation caused by the
commotion.

It is further submitted the incident

occurred due to failure of arrangement of
proper security measures by Sandhya Theatre
management and staff and because of
insufficient Police officials deployed to control
the large gathering of people in the theatre
premises. Therefore, attributing criminal
liability to the petitioner on account of his
presence at the location, is an abuse of
 3

process of law. There is no mens rea on the

part of the petitioner in commission of the
alleged offences and the allegations levelled
against the petitioner does not constitute the
alleged offences. The allegations against the
petitioner do not attract the alleged offences.

It is further submitted by learned Senior

Counsel that during the pendency of the
criminal petition, the petitioner has been
arrested today and he produced remand case
diary and prayed for interim bail pending
criminal petition. He placed relied on a
decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of
Maharastra and others1.

In Arnab Manoranjan Goswami’s case

the Honourable Supreme Court of India held
as follows:

“68….. However, there was a failure of

the High Court to discharge its
adjudicatory function at two levels –
first in PART J declining to evaluate
prima facie at the interim stage in a
petition for quashing the FIR as to
whether an arguable case has been
made out, and secondly, in declining
interim bail, as a consequence of its

1
(2021) 2 Supreme Court of Cases 427
 4

failure to render a prima facie opinion

on the first. The High Court did have
the power to protect the citizen by an
interim order in a petition invoking
Article 226. Where the High Court has
failed to do so, this Court would be
abdicating its role and functions as a
constitutional court if it refuses to
interfere, despite the parameters for
such interference being met. The doors
of this Court cannot be closed to a
citizen who is able to establish prima
facie that the instrumentality of the
State is being weaponized for using the
force of criminal law. Our courts must
ensure that they continue to remain
the first line of defense against the
deprivation of the liberty of citizens.
Deprivation of liberty even for a single
day is one day too many. We must
always be mindful of the deeper
systemic implications of our decisions.

72….Every court in our country would

do well to remember Lord Denning‘s
powerful invocation in the first Hamlyn
Lecture, titled ‗Freedom under the
Law‘ 43:

―Whenever one of the judges takes

seat, there is one application which by
long tradition has priority over all
others. The counsel has but to say,
‗My Lord, I have an application which
concerns the liberty of the subject‘,
and forthwith the judge will put all
other matters aside and hear it.
 5

It is our earnest hope that our courts

will exhibit acute awareness to the
need to expand the footprint of liberty
and use our approach as a decision-
making yardstick for future cases
involving the grant of bail.”

On the other hand, learned Public

Prosecutor for the State submitted that there
are serious allegations levelled against the
petitioner and he is not entitled for any relief
as sought for. The petitioner without
obtaining prior permission from Police and
knowing well proceeded to Sandhya 70 MM
Theatre to watch the premiere show of
‘Pushpa2’ leading to an untoward incident
causing the death of wife and causing injuries
to son of respondent No.2. Therefore, he is
liable for criminal prosecution for the alleged
offences. It is further submitted that no
interim bail can be granted in a petition filed
seeking quashment of proceedings under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita. With the above
submissions, he prayed not to grant interim
bail to the petitioner.

A perusal of the remand case diary and

record, it is apparent that Sandhya 70 M.M.
 6

management addressed a Letter dated

02.12.2024 to the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Chikkadpally Police Station and
sought permission to provide security
measures at Sandhya 70 MM Theatre in view
of arrival of movie team which includes Hero,
Heroin and other actors and makers of the
film. On the said letter, the Assistant
Commissioner of Police has affixed their seal
and endorsement. The film production unit
addressed a Letter dated 04.12.2024 and
sought permission to screening of premiere
show with all safety precautions.

Therefore, in the said facts and

circumstances of the case and in view of the
settled principle of law laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court of India, this
Court is of the considered view that it is a fit
case for grant of interim bail for a period of
four weeks subject to the following
conditions:
i. The petitioner-accused No.11
shall be released on interim bail,
subject to executing a personal
bond in the amount of
Rs.50,000/- to be executed
before the concerned Jail
 7

Superintendent.

ii. However, the investigating

officer is directed to proceed
with investigation.

iii. The petitioner-accused No.11

shall cooperate with the
investigation and he shall not
make any attempt to interfere
with the ongoing investigation or
with the witnesses, in any
manner.

iv. The concerned Jail

Superintendent and concerned
Commissioner of Police are
directed to ensure that this
Order is complied forthwith.

v. Registry is directed to
communicate this Order to the
concerned Jail Superintendent
and concerned Commissioner of
Police.
_____
JS,J
 8

CRL.P.No.15270 of 2024
Issue notice to respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is
permitted to take out personal notice to
respondent No.2 by registered post with
acknowledgment due and file proof of service
in the Registry by the next date of hearing.

List on 21.01.2025. ____

JS,J
Note:
Issue CC forthwith.
B/o. KHRM