THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6745, 6746 and 6751 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Criminal Petition No.6745 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, Criminal Petition No.6746 of 2025 is filed the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 and Criminal Petition No.6751 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 in Crime No.30 of 2025 of Suryapet (R) Police Station, Suryapet District. Hence, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘BNSS’) seeking bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.30 of 2025 of Suryapet (R) Police Station, Suryapet District, registered for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘BNS’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’).

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.01.2025 at 09.00 hours, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that his son, by name, Krishna, studied B. Pharmacy and accused Nos.1 to 3 are his close friends. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are the brothers. His son and the sister of accused No.1, namely, Bhargavi, had been in love for the past three years and decided to marry each other, but the family members of Bhargavi did not accept. As they were majors, they left their respective houses and got married at the Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple situated at Gopalaipalli of Narketpally Mandal. At that time, the father of the Bhargavi lodged a complaint before the Suryapet Rural Police Station that his daughter was missing. After that, the son of the de facto complainant and Bhargavi went to the Police Station, where counseling was given to the Bhargavi’s family, however, they did not accept the marriage. Bhargavi stated that she had married Krishna willingly. Krishna and Bhargavi were living together at the house of Perumalla Salamma, who is the aunt of the de facto complainant. The accused persons developed ill-will and threatened to kill his son and the same was informed to him by his son. On 26.01.2025 at about 05.00 p.m., his son left the house on a scooty informing his wife Bhargavi that accused No.2 had called and asked him to come for a discussion. However, he did not return. Bhargavi informed the same to him expressing fear. On 27.01.2025 at morning, he came to know that his son found dead at the edge of a pond, with bleeding injuries on his face, situated at the outskirts of Pillalamarri village. Hence, the complaint.

4. Heard Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P.Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Criminal Petition No.6745 of 2025, Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Vasiraju Kalki Charan, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 in Criminal Petition No.6746 of 2025, Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Trichnopoly Ravi Kanth, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.6 in Criminal Petition No.6751 of 2025, Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Shaikh Mohammed Rizwan Akthar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in all the criminal petitions, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offence and they were falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the complaint, the de facto complainant/respondent No.2 himself stated that he is a Pastor in Church. Once a person embraces and converts into Christianity, he ceases to belong to a scheduled caste. Hence, the offence under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is not applicable to the petitioners.

5.1. He further submitte