Koppula Naga Nagi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1069 Tel

Telangana High Court

Koppula Naga Nagi Reddy vs The 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),

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2020) 14 SCC 552

(2010) 14 SCC 496

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

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