THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13257 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.255 of 2025 before the Ghanpur Police Station, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.09.2025 at about 5.30 p.m., while the deceased, Bollam Bixapathi, was feeding his bulls near Oora Cheruvu outskirts of Dharmaraopet village, the bulls strayed into the paddy field of the petitioner, Poojari Babu. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner allegedly abused and beat the deceased with a palm tree stick, causing injuries. It was stated that the deceased felt humiliated, became mentally disturbed, and on 18.09.2025 consumed herbicide poison at his house. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Mulugu, and later to MGM Hospital, where he died on 26.09.2025.

3. Heard Sri M. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registration of the FIR itself was an abuse of process of law, as the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out and that the incident arose out of a personal dispute regarding crop damage and there was no intentional insult or humiliation on the ground of caste in public view. The deceased was a habitual alcoholic who had earlier attempted suicide and his death was due to his own mental condition. He further submitted that there was an unexplained delay of ten days in lodging the complaint, and no statement of the deceased was recorded during his hospitalization. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Further, the investigation was not yet completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted to the present case, the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclose that the petitioner abused the deceased in the name of his caste. The victim admittedly belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. Further, the complaint discloses that the incident occurred in a place accessible to the public, i.e., near the outskirts of the village, which can be construed as a place within public view.

7. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran v.

Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 869, wherein it held as follows:

“8. In the present case, as noted above, the incident took place outside the house of the appellant which could be viewed by anybody. It was indeed a place within public view. There is no gainsaying that in the facts of the case all ingredients necessary to prima facie constitute offences under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989 as alleged in the FIR stood satisfied. Furthermore, the occurrence of incident was fortified by recovery of clothes and weapons.

9. In the above view, there is no escape from the conclusion that offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out from the bare reading of the FIR. The High Court in proceeding to evaluate the testimony of witnesses and to opine on that basis that there were certain discrepancies, no offen