Telangana High Court
Mr. Papanaiak Sundaram vs State Of Telangana on 5 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8982, 8907 and 8915 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 respectively in Crime No.95 of 2025 of P.S. Doma, Vikarabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 305, 324(5) and 329(3) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'PDPP Act') and Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short 'ES Act').
2. All these criminal petitions are arising out of Crime No.95 of 2025 of Doma Police Station. Hence, all these three cases were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1 The brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.2025, the complainant, who is working as Nayab Tahsildar at Doma Mandal, lodged a complaint stating that during a field inspection near Dirsampally Village, it was found that Nagi Reddy (accused No.1), 2 who held a mining lease for 4 hectares (approximately 10 acres) in Sy.No.173/P, was conducting illegal mining in an adjacent area of approximately Ac.1-01 gunta. The inspection revealed blasting operations up to a depth of 7.25 meters, and the excavated material was allegedly sold for illegal profit. Upon inquiry, it was confirmed that mining was carried out beyond the leased area, following which the complainant seized three Hitachi excavators and one tractor.
Basing on the same, present crime was registered.
4. Heard Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Mohammed Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8982 of 2025 and Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8915 of 2025 and Sri Bandar Manav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8907 of 2025, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
5.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8982 of 2025 submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the above crime. He further 3 submitted that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District, after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act') has granted stone quarry lease under (Form-G) Rule 8 of the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'TSMMC Rules') on 12.03.2018 to an extent of 4 hectares (equivalent to 10 acres) in the Government land covered by Sy.No.173/P at Dirsampally Village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad District, for a period of 15 years.
He also submitted that the petitioner has obtained explosive license from the competent authority under the provisions of the ES Act and the same is valid up to 31.03.2029.
5.2 He further submitted that the Nayab Tahsildar, Parigi Mandal, lodged a false complaint alleging that accused No.1 was carrying out illegal mining activity over an extent of Ac.1.01 guntas beyond the leased area granted to him by excavating up to a depth of 7.25 meters using explosives, though accused No.1 has not violated any lease conditions. He also submitted that neither the Mines and Geology authorities nor the revenue authorities have conducted any inspection, survey or demarcation of the alleged land in question nor they have 4 issued any notice stating that accused No.1 is carrying out mining operations beyond the leased area, on the other hand, the de facto complainant-Nayab Tahsildar, straight away lodged a complaint against accused No.1 and others. He further submitted that accused No.1 is carrying out mining operations only within the leased area. Even if accused No.1 had violated any terms and conditions of the lease deed and work order, the concerned authorities ought to have issued a notice under the provisions of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and they are also entitled to collect the seigniorage fee and fine. 5.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that similarly situated persons, who had violated the mining lease conditions and carried out mining operations other than the leased area, the competent authority under the Rules, i.e., the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, had issued demand notices directing the leaseholders to pay seigniorage fee along with a penalty of ten times and no criminal complaints invoking penal provisions were filed against them. However, at the instance of pressure from local political party people, the de-facto complainant lodged the present complaint against accused 5 No.1 and others by invoking penal provisions, with an intention to harass them.
5.4 He further submitted that accused No.1 has not violated any provisions under PDPP Act or the ES Act and the ingredients of Section 4 of PDPP Act and Section 3(a) of the ES Act are not attracted against him, especially the license issued under the ES Act is valid until 31.03.2029 and the punishment prescribed for the other offences is up to seven years. He also submitted that even if accused No.1 is carrying out mining operations in an extent of Ac.1.01 gts., which is beyond the leased area, the competent authority is entitled to impose seigniorage fee, levy penalty, or regularize the said extent by including it within the leased area and may reduce Ac.1.01 gts. from the originally leased extent of 4 Hectares. He further submitted that as on date, accused No.1 is carrying out mining operations only in an extent of Ac.4.00 only and the remaining extent of Ac.6.00 of land is vacant. He further submitted that accused Nos.3 to 8 were enlarged on bail, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.7866 of 2025, dated 03.07.2025. He also submitted that accused No.1 is a senior citizen and he is not having any other criminal antecedents and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also 6 abide by the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, accused No.1 is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5.5 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments;
i) Haryana Mining Company v. State of Haryana and others 1;
ii) State of Kerala v. K.Ajith and others 2; and
iii) GSR Stone Crushers, Kadakella Village v. State of Andhra Pradesh3;
5.6 Sri M.Surendar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for accused Nos.11 and 12 submitted that accused Nos.11 and 12 have not committed any offences and no allegations have made against them. He further submitted that accused Nos.11 and 12 were not arrayed as accused in FIR and they are no way concerned with the alleged mining operations of accused Nos.1.
5.7 He also submitted that accused No.11 has been falsely implicated in the present crime on the ground that accused No.1 had entered into a partnership deed and rental agreement with him for 2022) 15 SCC 205 1 ( 2 (2021) 17 SCC 318 3 2023(1) ALT 312 (AP) 7 investment of the amounts in his firm and for taking three vehicles on lease and accused No.12 has been implicated in the present crime on the ground that three vehicles, which are in his name, were given on lease by accused No.11 to accused No.1 and he is son of Accused No.11. Mere entering into the partnership agreement for the purpose of investment in the firm of accused No.1 or entering into the lease agreement for giving the vehicles on rent/lease does not constitute any offence against accused No.11. He further submitted that accused No.11 made investment with accused No.1 through partnership deed, dated 21.02.2020, and as per the said partnership deed, the profit/loss of the business shall be shared between them at the ratio of 65:35 and the duration of the partnership is five years from 21.02.2020, which expired in the month of February, 2025. Hence, the ingredients of Section 4 of the PDPP Act and Section 3(a) of the ES Act including the other offences mentioned in the complaint are not attracted against accused No.11.
5.8 He further submitted that accused No.12 is a private employee working as Project Manager in Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited and he purchased the vehicles by availing loan, and the said vehicles were leased out by his father to accused No.1 8 through rental deed dated 21.02.2020. He also submitted that there are no specific allegations against accused No.12 for commission of any offence.
5.9 He further submitted that accused Nos.11 and 12 were not doing any illegal mining operations. The vehicles of accused No.12 were not seized at the scene of offence and he was implicated in the present crime basing upon the confession statement of accused No.2 and also he is relative to him. He also submitted that accused No.11 is a senior citizen, aged about 75 years, and he is suffering with old age ailments. The petitioners/accused Nos.11 and 12 are not having any criminal antecedents and they are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and they will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State:
6.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have committed a grave offence and specific allegations are levelled against them. He further submitted that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology had executed a mining lease in favour 9 of accused No.1 for an extent of 4 hectares (equivalent to Ac.10.00 guntas) for the purpose of mining operations i.e. excavation of CMB stone and metal. However, accused No.1 had encroached the Government land to an extent of Ac.1.01 gt. and he along with accused Nos.11 and 12 and other accused are doing illegal mining operations without any permission. He also submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, accused No.1 is not entitled to assign, underlet or part with possession of the demised land or any part thereof without the written consent of the lessor. Accused No.1 contrary to the condition Nos.4, 5, and 14 of the lease agreement entered into partnership agreement and rental agreement with accused No.11 and other agreements with the other accused. Accused No.1, in collusion with other accused, excavated 33,570.7 CBM of stone and metal beyond the leased area and caused huge financial loss of Rs.3,97,35,920/- to the State and damaged the public property.
Hence, the ingredients of Section 4 of PDPP Act are attracted against the petitioners and other accused. He also submitted that the petitioners along with other accused carried out illegal mining operations by digging 7.25 meters using explosive materials, hence, 10 the ingredients of Section 3(a) of the ES Act are attracted against them.
6.2 He further submitted that accused No.3 in his statement specifically stated that accused No.1 is having Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crusher and Quarry and accused No.2 has taken the said Quarry on lease from accused No.1 and in the said quarry, 4 Hitachi excavators and 3 Tippers are there, out of it, 2 Hitachi excavators and 3 Tippers are belonging to accused No.12. He further submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 are business partners and they indulged in illegal mining activities and are making illegal gains. Accused Nos.11 and 12 in conspiracy with accused No.1 carried out illegal mining operations and caused huge financial loss to the Government. Moreover, the investigation is under progress. Therefore, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they will tamper the evidence, interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Analysis:
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals 11 that the Government had granted quarry lease for excavation of stone and metal and transportation in an extent of 4 hectares (approximately 10 acres) in the Government land covered by Sy.No.173 of Dirsampally Village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad District for a period of 15 years i.e. from 12.03.2018 to 11.03.2033 to M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crusher, represented by its Proprietor K.Nagi Reddy, who is accused No.1 in the present crime, after following the due procedure. Accordingly, Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tandur, Vikarabad District, had issued work order vide proceedings No.7748/OMCA/QL/2016, dated 12.03.2018, and accused No.1 had entered into Lease Agreement under Form-G for a period of 15 years with the above said officer i.e., Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tandur.
8. The specific case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 had entered into partnership deed dated 20.02.2020 and rental agreement dated 20.02.2020 with accused No.11 for carrying out mining operations, though as per lease deed, dated 12.03.2018, he is not entitled to assign, underlet or part with the possession of the demised land or any part thereof without the written consent of the lessor. The further case of prosecution is that in partnership deed, accused No.1 12 himself mentioned that he is preoccupied with some other activities and he is unable to run the quarry business of the aforesaid firm namely M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crusher and therefore, he entered into partnership deed as well as rental agreement with accused No.11.
9. The record reveals that there are allegations against accused Nos.1 and 11 that they carried out mining operations illegally by encroaching Ac.1-01 gunta of the adjacent Government land by using explosive substances unauthorisedly and excavated huge quantity of 33,570.7 CBM stone and metal outside the leased area and caused huge loss to the Government to a tune of Rs.3,97,35,920/- and accused No.12 has provided his vehicles to accused No.1 for excavation and transportation of stone and metal. Even according to the parties, 3 vehicles are stand in the name of accused No.12 and the said vehicles were given on lease/rent to accused No.1 through rental agreement dated 21.02.2020 by accused No.11, who is none other than the father of accused No. 12.
10. The record further reveals that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tandur, had issued Show Cause Notice No.7748/OMCA/QL/2016, dated 03.06.2025, and thereafter, issued demand notice No.7748/OMCA/QL/2016, dated 20.06.2025 directing 13 M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crusher, Proprietor i.e. Nagi Reddy/accused No.1 to pay Rs.3,97,35,920/- for excavation and transportation of 50356.1 of MT of stone and metal outside the leased area, exercising the powers conferred under Rule 26 of the Rules.
11. The core contention of the learned counsel for accused No.1 is that either the Mines and Geology authorities or the revenue authorities have not issued any notice, either under the Rules, 1966 or under any other law, or identified the land in which accused No.1 is doing mining operations other than the leased area. Even if accused No.1 is doing mining operation other than the leased area, the competent authorities under the Rules are entitled to impose seigniorage fee and penalty only, and the de facto complainant is not entitled to file criminal complaint under the penal provisions, especially similar quarry lease holders when committed similar offences, the Mines and Geology authorities have issued demand notice directing them to pay seigniorage fee and penalty amount and not lodged any criminal complaint against them. Whereas, in the case on hand, the de facto complainant lodged the present complaint against the petitioners and other accused at the instance of local political party people pressure only and the same is not permissible 14 under law is concerned, the specific case of prosecution is that accused No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the mining lease and doing mining operations in an extent of Ac.1-01 gunta, which is other than the leased area, and caused huge financial loss to the Government by using explosive substances unauthorizedly with the collusion of accused Nos.11 and 12 and other accused.
12. It is pertinent to mention that mere non-lodging of a complaint against similarly situated persons by the revenue authorities or Mines and Geology authorities is not a ground to hold that the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant is not maintainable against the petitioners. The validity of the institution of the criminal complaint cannot be adjudicated in the present application, as the scope of the present criminal petition is very limited. The only issue for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail basing upon the facts and circumstances of the case or not.
13. It is already stated supra, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology while exercising the powers conferred under the Rules, issued Show Cause Notice dated 03.06.2025 to M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crusher represented by its Proprietor K.Naga Reddy, who is 15 accused No.1, and also issued demand notice on 20.06.2025. It is relevant to mention that initiation of the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under Rules and the initiation of criminal proceedings for penal provisions, both are different and distinct.
14. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 in Haryana Mining Company (supra), and GSR Stone Crushers (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the above said judgments are related to termination of lease, imposition of fine and penalty. Insofar as the other judgment in K.Ajith and others (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable to the present case, as the said case is arising against the final judgment passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.697 and 698 of 2021.
15. Insofar as the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for accused Nos.11 and 12 that accused No.11 had entered into partnership deed only for limited purpose and he invested the amount in accused No.1's firm to improve the business and the said partnership is between accused Nos.1 and 11 only for limited extent for profit/loss and accused No.11 is no way concerned with the illegal excavation of mining of stone and metal outside the leased area, and 16 the said partnership deed dated 21.02.2020 is valid only for five years and as per rental agreement entered by accused Nos.1 and 11, accused No.11 only given the vehicles of accused No.12 to accused No.1 on rent/lease and accused Nos.11 and 12 have not committed any offence, are concerned, the specific case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 himself in the rental agreement, dated 21.03.2025, mentioned that he is preoccupied with some other activities and he is unable to run the quarry business stands in the name of M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crusher, and accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 11 have entered into partnership deed as well as rental agreement on 21.03.2025 and accused No.11 is looking after the quarry operations etc. and there is a criminal conspiracy between accused Nos.1, 11 and
12. Whether accused No.11 is doing mining operations under the guise of partnership deed and rental agreement entered by him with accused No.1, whether accused No.1 alone is doing quarry operations, the same will reveal during the course of investigation only. Even according to the prosecution, the investigation is under progress.
16. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for accused Nos.11 and 12 that since this Court has granted bail in favour of accused Nos.3 to 8, the petitioners are also entitled 17 for grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, the record reveals that accused Nos.3 to 8 were arrested on 01.06.2025 and they are drivers and workers and they approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.7866 of 2025 for grant of regular bail and taking into consideration the incarceration period, this Court granted bail in their favour and basing upon the same, accused Nos.11 and 12 are not entitled to seek for grant of anticipatory bail especially there are specific allegations against them.
17. It is pertinent to mention that in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S 4., the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that availing a civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution.
18. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court 4 (2020) 14 SCC 552 5 (2010) 14 SCC 496 18 to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court outlined key factors to be considered while deciding bail applications, including: whether there exists a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe the accused committed the offence; the nature and seriousness of the charges; the potential severity of punishment upon conviction; the risk of the accused absconding; the accused's character, social standing, and means; the likelihood of the offence being repeated; the possibility of witness tampering; and the danger of justice being obstructed. The 19 judgment highlights the importance of a balanced and reasoned approach in bail matters to ensure fairness and prevent miscarriage of justice.
20. In the case on hand, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 that accused No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and in conspiracy with other accused persons, encroached the land to an extent of Ac.1-01 gunta beyond the leased area, excavated 33,570.7 CBM stone and metal and caused huge financial loss of Rs.3,97,35,920/- to the State. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is under progress and the charge sheet has not been filed.
21. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 especially when the investigation is under progress.
22. Accordingly, all the criminal petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 05.08.2025 Note: Issue C.C. in three days.
B/o pgp/vsl