THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14050 OF 2025

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/A.1 seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.537 of 2024 of Balanagar Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 103 and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.08.2024 at around 5:20 PM, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that she had married Arupula Mukende-deceased and had two children Sai Kiran who is 5 years old and Sai Chaitanya who is 2 ½ years old. On the same day at around 12:40 PM, while her husband Mukender and in-laws Savitri and Rajamallaiah were at home, they went outside to collect wheat grains left out to dry. At that moment, the petitioner attacked her husband with an axe and an iron rod. The complainant heard her husband’s screams and rushed outside who found the petitioner striking the head of his husband. Her mother-in-law Savitri tried to intervene where she had also suffered a severe head injury. When the complainant and her father-in-law attempted to stop the petitioner, he threatened them, and tried to kill them forcing them to retreat indoors. The complainant immediately called the police through Dial 100. Upon returning outside, she found her husband bleeding and her mother-in-law severely injured and they were immediately shifted to BBR Hospital, where the doctor declared the husband of complaint dead and her mother-in-law in critical condition and she was shifted to KIMS Hospital for further treatment. The complainant alleged that there were previous disputes between their families over the management of Nalla Pochamma temple and an agreement had been made that each family to maintain the temple for two years. From 2023 to 2025, the complainant’s family was responsible, and from August 2025, the responsibility was to shift to the petitioner’s family. However, as they have violated this agreement, the petitioner committed murder and attempted murder, and requested strict action against him. Basing on the said complaint police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri G.Venkat Ratnam Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences, he is falsely implicated in this case though he is no way connected with this offence. Petitioner is in jail from 28.08.2024, investigation is completed, charge sheet filed and trial is also commenced. He further contended that the prosecution has mainly relied on the testimony of interested witnesses who are family members of the deceased. He further submitted that petitioner is suffering from serious health issues, his father is paralyzed and he had two children to take care of. Hence, prayed this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature. The petitioner herein caused injury with an axe on the head of husband of complainant keeping family disputes in mind due to which he died and the mother of deceased also died. Another crime is also registered against the petitioner. As such, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is in jail from the last one and half year and there is no progress in trial. Mere pendency of another case is not a ground to deny bail to the petitioner, whereas the averments in the complaint and the remand report shows th