Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16958
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J
A.2 – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 9412 of 2025|Criminal Petition No. 9420 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Vasiraju Kalki Charan, Sri P.Vivek
For the Respondents: Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Sri V.Raghunath
The court emphasized that serious charges related to inter-caste marriage merit denial of bail regardless of the completion of investigation.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Petitioners sought regular bail for charges 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 - Allegations of honor killing due to inter-caste marriage. (Paras 2, 4, 6)
(B) The bail was opposed citing the nature of the charges as heinous and being a societal issue - Previous applications were denied, and no new circumstances were found to justify bail. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners accused of conspiring and murdering the complainant's son due to his inter-caste marriage. The deceased was found dead with injuries after threats were made against him - The complaint alleged conspiracy and murder motivated by caste considerations. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The severity of the charges and lack of change in circumstances from previous bail denials led to the dismissal of bail petitions. (Paras 8-9)
Issues: Assessment of the nature of the offences and the validity of bail in light of the evidence presented. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that due to the serious nature of the charges and the previous history of the accused, bail was not warranted despite the completion of investigation. (Para 8)
Result: Both bail petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of murder linked to caste tensions (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail based on evidence and societal impact (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioners claim false implication; issues of caste and prior bail decisions. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's assessment of severity and rationale for bail denial (Para 8) |
COMMON ORDER:
Crl.P.No.9412 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/A.2 and Crl.P.No.9420 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners/A.1 and A.3 in Cr.No.30 of 2025 of Suryapet Rural Police Station, Nalgonda District. These criminal petitions are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNSS ’) by the respective petitioners seeking regular bail in connection with the above crime.
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, Gopalayapelli, 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, Byru 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 Vasiraju Kalki Charan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A.2 in Crl.P.No.9412 of 2025, Sri P.Vivek, learned counsel appearing for petitioners/A.1 and A.3 in Crl.P.No.9420 of 2025, Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- State and Sri V.Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S.M.Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.P.No.9420 of 2025.
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
