Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15134
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J
Kotla Naveen – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana PS Suryapet Rural – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.11877 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy
For the Respondents: Sri P. Nageshwar Rao, Sri V. Raghunath
The court denied bail in an honor killing case due to serious allegations against the accused, reaffirming the fundamental right to choose a life partner.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 103(1), 61(2) r/w 3(5) and SC/ST (POA) Act - Section 3(2)(v) - Criminal bail petition filed to enlarge accused in a murder case linked to an inter-caste marriage - The allegations are serious, maintaining that honor killing is involved and prima facie evidence exists against the accused. (Paras 2, 8, 9)
(B) Right to choose a life partner - The Court reaffirms the fundamental right to choose one’s partner and condemns honor killings as illegal and unconstitutional, referencing Articles 19 and 21. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that his son was murdered due to an inter-caste marriage, leading to the filing of a police complaint resulting in serious allegations against the accused.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners' involvement in other crimes and the serious allegations against them lead the Court to dismiss the bail petition, emphasizing that the case must go through trial.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted bail considering the serious nature of allegations and involvement in other offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlighted that accusations regarding honor killing and threats to the complainant cannot be disregarded at this stage, thus maintaining the denial of bail.
Result: Criminal petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of inter-caste marriage leading to allegations of murder. (Para 2) |
| 2. court’s observations regarding seriousness of allegations and previous bail denials. (Para 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments presenting initial evidence and allegations against the accused. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. court's reaffirmation of fundamental rights against honor killings. (Para 9) |
| 5. conclusion to dismiss bail petition based on merit and seriousness of charges. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER:
Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.Spl.No.96 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/STs – cum – II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint stating that he had one daughter, Swetha, and one son, Krishna alias Mala Banti, aged about 30 years, who had completed B. Pharmacy and was engaged in real estate business. His son and one Kotla Naveen, along with Kotla Vamshi of Pillalamarri village, were brothers, and their father, Kotla Saidulu, belonged to the Goud community. Byru Mahesh, also belongs to the Goud caste and resident of Tallagadda, Suryapet, was their family friend. The complainant’s son and Kotla Naveen’s sister, Bhargavi, were in love and decided to marry, but Bhargavi’s parents did not approve. As both were majors, they got married on 07.08.2024 at Sri Laxmi Narsimha Swamy Temple, Gopalaipalli, without informing anyone. Bhargavi’s father then lodged a missing complaint, which led to police counselling, where Bhargavi stated she married on her own free will. The couple thereafter stayed at the house of the complainant’s mother-in-law in Mammillagadda, Suryapet. Bhargavi’s brothers, Kotla Naveen and Kotla Vamshi, and their friend, Bairu Mahesh, allegedly bore a grudge over the inter-caste marriage and threatened to kill the complainant’s son. On 26.01.2025, around 5:00 p.m., after overhearing Bhargavi speaking to Byru Mahesh, the complainant’s son left home on his scooty, saying Mahesh had called him, but did not return. The next morning, he was found dead near Cheruvu Thumu, Pillalamarri outskirts, with blood injuries on his face. The complainant alleged that the accused conspired and murdered his son due to the inter- caste marriage, abandoned the body, and fled. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case under Sections 103 (1), 61(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against A1 to A6.
3. Heard Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri P.
Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-State and Sri V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S.M.Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and
3.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence much less the alleged offences. The allegations made in the written report are vague, baseless, unfounded and false. The police registered the crime without conducting any preliminary investigation. Learned counsel also contended that it is settled principle that Christianity does not recognize caste and according to the complainant he retired as a pastor in Church which clearly shows that he embraced Christianity. Once a person embraces and converts into a Christian, he ceases to belong to scheduled caste. As per the constitution, no person who professes other than Hinduism, Sikh, Jain and Buddhism shall not be a member of scheduled caste. As such the complainant does not belong to scheduled caste. Further, A.5 and A.6 in this case are already granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.6746 of 2025 and Crl.P.No.6751 of 2025 respectively.
5. Learned counsel further contended that even in the charge sheet there is no incriminating
