Telangana High Court
Kotla Naveen vs The State Of Telangana on 18 June, 2025
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 submitted that accused Nos.4 to 6 were
implicated only basing on the confession statement of the other
accused. Even on perusal of the complaint, there are no
allegations, much less specific allegations against accused Nos.4
to 6 and they were falsely implicated in the present crime. The
petitioners were arrested on 29.01.2025 and since then, they were
in judicial custody i.e, more than 135 days and the petitioners are
entitled for grant of bail. He also submits that the Investigating
Officer has not filed application seeking police custody of the
petitioners and investigation is completed. The Investigating
Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet on
24.04.2025 before the Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs
(POA) Act cases-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Nalgonda. Hence, the question of interfering with the investigation
or influencing the witnesses or tampering the evidence by the
petitioners does not arise.
5.2. He further submitted that no eye witnesses were examined.
The prosecution only relying upon the circumstantial evidence,
medical evidence and confessional statements of accused, filed
charge sheet. Accused No.5 is a house wife, aged 69 years and
suffering with old-age problems and accused No.5 is a student.
5.3. Insofar as pendency of other criminal cases against the
petitioners are concerned, the said cases were filed by the
neighbours in respect of trespassing the property and theft cases
and thus, they will not come in the way to deny for grant of bail in
the present crime, especially those cases pertaining to the years
2006, 2007, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023 and 2024.
5.4. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and
willing to appear before the trial Court on each and every
adjournment to prosecute the proceedings and they are ready to
abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this
Court.
5.5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments:
1. W.S.V. Satyanarayana v. Director of Tribal
Welfare, A.P., at Hyderabad and others 1; and
2. Chinni Appa Rao v. State of A.P., Rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Hyderabad and another 2
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.2
and 3 submitted that the petitioners have committed brutal
murder. Respondent No.3 and the deceased fell in love with each
(1996) 1 ALT 170
(2016) 1 ALD (Crl) 545
other and they decided to live together and performed the
marriage on 07.08.2024. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are the brothers,
accused No.4 is the father and accused No.5 is the grandmother
of respondent No.3 and they did not accept their marriage on the
ground that they belongs to backward caste and the deceased
belongs to scheduled caste, as such, with an intention to
eliminate the deceased, they committed the murder of the
deceased on 26.01.2025. Respondent No.2, who is none other
than the father of the deceased and father-in-law of respondent
No.3, lodged the complaint on 27.01.2025 and basing on the said
complaint, Crime No.30 of 2025 was registered by the Suryapet
(R) Police Station. The investigating officer after conducting
investigation filed charge sheet, wherein the role of each accused
was mentioned in the commission of offence. If the petitioners are
enlarged on bail, there is a serious threat to the life of respondent
Nos.2 and 3. The offence committed by the petitioners is serious
in nature and it impacts on the society.
6.1. He further submitted that the contentions raised by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the ingredients of
SCs/STs (POA) Act are not attracted against the petitioners on the
ground that respondent No.2 is a Pastor is not true and correct,
as the status of the community cannot be adjudicated in the
present case and the same has to be decided during the course of
trial. He further submitted that the petitioners have involved in
other criminal cases. Taking into consideration the gravity of the
offence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail.
6.2. He further submitted that the present crime is registered
under the provisions of the SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases and as per
Section 14(3) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, the trial Court conclude
the trial and disposed of the case by fixing time limit and this
Court may be directed to expedite the trial.
6.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments:
1. Virupakshappa Gouda and another v. State
of Karnataka and another 3;
2. Mamta Nair v. State of Rajasthan and
another 4;
3. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others 5;
and
4. Gudur Sandeep Reddy and others v. State of
Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor 6.
(2017) 5 SCC 406
(2021) 7 SCC 442
(2018) 7 SCC 192
(2021) 1 ALT (Crl) 18
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the very
same submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for
respondent Nos.2 and 3. He submitted that the petitioners have
committed the grave offence and there are specific overt acts
against the petitioners that they killed the deceased. The
petitioners are having criminal antecedents. Taking into
consideration the facts and gravity of the offence, the petitioners
are not entitled for grant of bail.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that accused Nos.1 and 3 are the brothers,
accused No.4 is the father and accused No.5 is the grandmother
of respondent No.3 and they belong to backward caste, whereas
the deceased belongs to scheduled caste. Respondent No.2 lodged
a complaint on 27.01.2025 stating that accused Nos.1 to 3 are
close friends to the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 3 are the
brothers. Due to their friendship, the deceased got acquaintance
with respondent No.3 and they were in love for the past three
years and they decided to live together and both were married on
07.08.2024 at Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Gopalaipally,
Narketpally Mandal. The inter-caste marriage of the deceased and
respondent No.3 was not accepted by the accused persons. In the
meantime, accused No.4 filed complaint in Suryapet (R) Police
Station stating that his daughter i.e., respondent No.3, is found
missing and basing on the said compliant, Crime No.301 of 2024
was registered for 'woman missing'. After their marriage, the
deceased and respondent No.3 went to the police station and
stated that they are majors and got inter-caste marriage as per
their will and wish. Accordingly, the police summoned the family
members of both sides and made counseling, but the family
members of respondent No.3 have not accepted their marriage.
The deceased and respondent No.3 started their marital life in the
house of LW.3. The deceased informed respondent No.2 about
threatening made by the accused. On 26.01.2025 at about 05.00
p.m., the deceased left the house on a scooty informing
respondent No.3 that accused No.2 had called and asked him to
come for a discussion. However, he did not return. Respondent
No.3 informed the same to respondent No.2 and expressing fear.
On 27.01.2025 at morning, respondent No.2 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.
9. As per the remand case diary and charge sheet, accused
Nos.1 and 3 to 5 have not accepted the marriage of the deceased
and respondent No.3 and they hatched a plan along accused No.2
and decided to do away the deceased at any cost. As per their
plan, on 26.01.2025, accused No.2 made a phone call to the
deceased at about 16.40 hours to come for a party (davath) and
after some time, the deceased went on his scooty to the paddy
field of accused No.2 and as per their plan, accused No.2 asked
the deceased to leave the place and on that when the deceased
started his scooty, accused No.2 sat on the back side of the scooty
and caught hold the neck of the deceased and pressed the throat.
Due to which, the deceased left the scooty and fell down on the
ground and at the same time, accused Nos.1 and 3 rushed there
and accused No.3 caught hold the legs of the deceased and
accused No.1 throttled him and gave fist blows over the face of the
deceased and accused Nos.1 and 3 kicked on his chest and
stomach. It is further stated in the charge sheet that with an
intention to show the dead body of the deceased to accused No.5,
accused Nos.1 and 2 went to Patha Suryapet village in the car,
while accused No.3 followed them on scooty of the deceased. It is
further stated that on the way, accused No.1 made a phone call to
accused No.6 and accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up accused No.6 in
the car at his house at Nalgonda and they dropped accused No.6
at Sudeeksha Hospital at Nalgonda, as he is suffering with
headache.
10. In the case W.S.V. Satyanarayana, the Andhra Pradesh
High court has held that:
15. Sri Nayani Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the
petitioner pleaded for taking a sympathetic view. I am afraid,
this Court cannot assist such person who has not
approached this Court with clean hands. Admittedly, the
petitioner is born to a Balija father. Whether his mother
belongs either to S.C., S.T. or B.C. does not matter as in my
view, social status of the children will go with the social
status of the father but not with the mother. It may be true
that the husband and wife being one, that concept cannot be
extended for secular purposes. Wife becoming on her
husband's death, a surviving half of her husband and her
becoming the sapinda of her husband is based on spiritual
and not on secular considerations. Thus, the off-spring born
out of the wed-lock of inter-caste marriages cannot claim the
social status of the mother. As held by the Supreme Court in
Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh [AIR 1965 SC 1557.] , in
order to determine whether or not a particular caste is a
Scheduled Caste within the meaning of Article 341, one has
to look at the public notification issued by the President in
that behalf. Any person who claims that he belongs to the
same status by reason of the fact that he belongs to a
particular caste which is a sub-caste of the caste declared by
the President cannot be accepted unless it is expressly
mentioned in the public notification under Article 341(1). An
enquiry of this kind would not be permissible having regard
to the provisions contained in Article 341.
16. Thus, it is clear that persons belonging to categories of
caste indicated under Articles 341 and 342 alone are to be
recognised as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. No claim
from persons of third categories as provided by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O. Ms. No. 371 dated
13-4-1976 be accepted for the purpose of granting benefits
to the children born out of the inter-caste marriages from
out of the quota meant for either S.C., S.T. or B. Cs.
11. The issue in the above said judgment pertains to reservation
benefits for Scheduled Tribes (ST) and the misuse of these benefits
by individuals not genuinely belonging to the ST category. The
petitioner, W.S.V. Satyanarayana, a student admitted to an MBA
course on a seat reserved for Schedule Tribes, claimed ST status
based on his mother's lineage (Konda Kapu community), while his
father belonged to the Balija community, which is not recognized
as an ST. The petitioner relied on Government Order (G.O.) Ms.
No. 371 dated 13-4-1976, which purportedly allows children born
out of inter-caste marriages to claim their mother's caste.
However, the High Court ruled that such benefits must align
strictly with the Presidential Order under Article 342 of the Indian
Constitution, which is the only authority that defines the
Scheduled Tribes. The Court held that the social status of the
father predominates in determining caste and that the petitioner's
claim to ST benefits was not valid. Moreover, the G.O. Ms. No. 371
was declared ultra vires (beyond legal authority) as it conflicts
with the Constitution's provisions. The Court emphasized the
necessity to safeguard benefits meant for genuine Scheduled
Tribes and prevent exploitation through fraudulent or non-
conforming claims.
12. Further, in the case of Chinna Appa Rao, the High Court of
Hyderabad quashed the criminal proceedings in P.R.C. No. 5 of
2012, holding that the de facto complainant, who had converted
to Christianity and served as a Pastor since 2004, could no longer
claim the benefits of Scheduled Caste status under the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The case originated
from allegations of caste-based abuse and offences under the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and IPC, but the police
had initially closed the case as a mistake of fact. Upon protest by
the complainant, proceedings were revived, but the Court found
that the complainant's own statements confirmed his conversion,
and hence, he was ineligible to invoke Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents like "Soosai v. Union of
India", the Court affirmed that conversion to Christianity removes
entitlement to SC protections unless explicitly preserved by law.
Additionally, the IPC charges were found to be based on a civil
land dispute and lacked prima facie substance. Consequently, the
Court quashed the criminal proceedings, cancelled the bail bonds,
and emphasized that justice must prevail over the technical
enforcement of the law.
13. The above said judgments relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as the status of community of
respondent No.2/de facto complainant whether he belongs to S.C.
community or not is a disputed question of fact and the same
cannot be decided while adjudicating bail petition.
14. In Virupakshappa Gouda, the Supreme Court upheld the
cancellation of bail granted to a murder accused who had killed a
man for marrying one of their daughters against caste norms. The
Court found that the trial judge wrongly granted bail despite
earlier rejections by higher courts and failed to consider the
seriousness of the offence, which stemmed from a so-called
"honour killing." Emphasizing judicial propriety and public
interest, the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the accused
to surrender.
15. In the case of Mamta Nair, the apex court has set aside the
bail granted by the Rajasthan High Court to the accused Mukesh
Chaudhary, who is the appellant's brother and allegedly involved
in the honor killing of her husband. The appellant, Mamta Nair,
had challenged the High Court's order dated December 1, 2020,
which allowed bail to the accused without providing sufficient
reasoning. The incident originated from FIR No. 235/2017,
registered under Sections 302, 452, and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, where Mamta's mother-in-law, Rama Devi Nair, had alleged
that Mamta's family members killed her son due to disapproval of
the marriage. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's
decision to grant bail was mechanical and ignored the fact that
prima facie evidence against the accused still existed. The Court
emphasized that the examination of a single witness, particularly
the appellant, did not amount to a significant change in
circumstance to justify bail. As a result, the apex court cancelled
the bail, directed the accused to surrender before the Sessions
Court, and instructed the trial court to complete the proceedings
within one year. The appeal was allowed, reaffirming the need for
reasoned judicial orders, especially in serious criminal matters.
16. In Shakti Vahini, the Supreme Court held that honour
killings are illegal and unconstitutional, asserting that the right to
choose a life partner is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and
21. The Court condemned interference by Khap Panchayats and
similar bodies, stating they have no authority to impose social
sanctions on consenting adult couples. It issued binding
preventive, protective, and punitive guidelines for authorities and
recommended specific legislation to curb honour crimes,
emphasizing that constitutional morality must override social
norms.
17. In the case of Gudur Sandeep Reddy, this Court has held
that the alleged honour killing of one Chintha Yoga Hemanth
Kumar, who had entered into an inter-caste marriage with the de
facto complainant, against her family's wishes. The prosecution
alleges that the accused, being close relatives of the de facto
complainant, conspired with the principal accused, trespassed
into the house of the deceased, abducted him, and participated in
his subsequent murder. The remand report and statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose specific overt acts
and prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the crime.
Considering the seriousness of the offence, the nature of
allegations, and the social evil of honour killings, as condemned
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, this Court finds no ground to grant
bail at this stage. The possibility of interference with the ongoing
investigation and intimidation of witnesses cannot be ruled out.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Virupakshappa Gouda supra,
while cancelling the bail, which was granted in favour of the prime
accused, specifically held that bail granted to a murder accused,
who had killed a man on the ground that he performed inter-caste
marriage stemmed from a so-called 'honour killing' should not be
given the relief of bail, ordered to surrender. Further, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. 7 by considering the
seriousness of the offence and the nature of the allegations,
condemned the social evil of honour killings, which is also relied
on by this in Gudur Sandeep Reddy supra.
19. In the case on hand, there are serious and specific
allegations are levelled against accused Nos.1 to 4, which attract
the ingredients of Sections 103(1) and 61(2) read with 3(5) of the
BNS and in the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has
specifically mentioned the role of accused Nos.1 to 4. Taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, including
criminal antecedents of accused Nos.1 to 4, and the gravity of the
offence as well as principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
supra, this Court is of the considered view that accused Nos.1 to 4
are not entitled for grant of bail.
20. Insofar as accused Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, there are no
specific overt acts against them. The allegation made against
accused No.5 is that accused Nos.1 to 3 were shown the dead
body of the deceased to her. The allegation made against accused
(2006) 5 SCC 475
No.6 is that accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up accused No.6 in their
car and they dropped him at Sudeeksha Hospital at Nalgonda due
to his ill-health.
21. Insofar as the criminal antecedents of accused Nos.5 and 6
are concerned, Crime No.256 of 2019 was registered for the
offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and
Crime No.218 of 2020 was registered for the offences under
Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC by the
Suryapet (R) Police Station and the punishment for the aforesaid
offences is below seven years and as far as accused No.6 is
concerned, Crime No.330 of 2022 was registered for the offence
under Section 379 of the IPC by the Nalgonda II Town Police
Station and the punishment for the aforesaid offence is three
years.
22. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and as accused No.5 is a woman, aged about 69 years
and accused No.6 is a student, and as there are no specific overt
acts against them. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to
accused Nos.5 and 6 subject to the following conditions:
(i) Accused Nos.5 and 6 shall be released on bail on their
executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like
sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Sessions
Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Cases at Nalgonda.
(ii) Accused Nos.5 and 6 shall appear before the concerned
Court on each and every adjournment to prosecute the
case.
(iii) Accused Nos.5 and 6 shall not contact respondent
Nos.2 and 3 and their family members in any manner.
(iv) Accused Nos.5 and 6 shall surrender their respective
passport before the trial Court. If accused Nos.5 and 6
are not having passport, they have to file a sworn
affidavit before the trial Court to that extent.
(v) Accused Nos.5 and 6 shall abide by the other
conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.,
presently Section 480(3) of BNSS.
(vi) If accused Nos.5 and 6 violate any of the conditions, the
respondents are entitled to file an application seeking
cancellation of bail.m
23. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.6745 of 2025 is
dismissed, Criminal Petition No.6746 of 2025 is partly allowed
and Criminal Petition No.6751 of 2025 is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 18.06.2025
mar
