D Chandra and arrother v. State of Karnatakal

State of Telangana, rep. by P.P. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to release the petitioner/Al on bail in S.C No. 387 of 2023 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Offences Under SCs & STs (POA) Act-Cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HONONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J. .<;REEN[VAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2463 fi2025 ORDER: 'l'his Crirninal petition has been liled under Sections 4gO and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Strra <sha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS'r b1, the petitioner, who is arraye'1 as acctrsed No. 1, seeking bail in S.C.No.387 of 2023 on t he file of Special Sessions .Jtrdge for Trial of Offences under S{)s/STs (pOA) Act_ cum-vll Additional District and Sessions .ru<rge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nag:lr, for the offences punishable _tnder Sections 3O2, 201 rezrd with Section lO9,2O2 of IpC and l.jection 3(2)(v) of The SCs/Slt's (POA) Arnendment Act, 2015.

2. Hear<1 Mr. p. prabhal<ar Reddy, lear,ted counsel for the petitior: er, .nd Mr. Syed yasar Marnoon, lear.ed Additional Public l)r<>sccutor appearing for respondent Statc. or- tskirl s of

3. The case of prosecution in brief is tlr.rt on the night of the petitioner brought the deceased to the 17.o2.2023, Pedda Amberpet Municipalit.,, situated nea-r ro Rarnadr:vi Public School on his motorcycle and killed him by strangulation and after that he separated -rcad, private pa-rts ald removcd heart and kept the same in a bag and thrown near to th.e prernises towards Brahmanapall,r road and brought 2 the remaining parts of the body to the sarne place and burnt the bag containing fingers, clothes, heart and private parts of the deceased over sexual jealor-rs that the deceased is interfering in his love life with his girl friend Niharika Reddy, who is none other than Ex. girl friend of the deceased. Later, the petitioner surrendered before the police and confessed about the comrnission of offence and showed the scene of offence to the police.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the petitioner is innocent person and he did not cornmit the alleged offence and he was falsely irnplicated in this case on trrere suspicion. He further submitted that the prosecution mainly relied on rnotive and confession and recovery from the accused. The incident was said to have been taken place on L7.O2.2O23. However, the complaint was lodged on 24.O2.2023. He further submitted that there is no rnaterial to connect the petitioner with the crime, except his confession staterrrent rnade before the police and the said confessions staternent is not adrnissible in law. Even according to the rnateria,l collected by the police, CC TV footage regarding the movernents of the petitioner ald accused No.3 on 2O.O2.2O23 cannot be dra.wn any inference againsrt them that they conspired along I irith accused No.2 to kil1 th,: deceased.

4.1. I{e further subrnitted that S.C.No.3rl7 of 2023 is posted for frarning of charges and the petitio rer is in j ail since 24.02.2023 and he rvill abide by the conditions, which are going to be irnposed by this Court. The.refore, he prayed to releasr: thc petitioner on bail.

4.2. In support of his contention,. he relierl upon the judgrnent of the Horr'ble Sr-rpreme Court in Venkat,:sh (r:D Chandra and arrother v. State of Karnatakal.

5. I'er contra, learned Additional public l)rosecutor appearing on bchalf of respondent opposed the bail petition ald submit:ted that the petitioner has cornmi [ted a grave offence pr-rnish.able r-rnder Sections 3O2 , 20 I rea,l with Section 1O9, 2O2 c,f IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs/STs (pOA) Arrrcnd rrrer-rt Act, 2015. In S.C.No.3g7 of )O23, trial Lras been commernced long back and pWs.l to 3 were exarnined by counsel for the petitioner and pW.3 was. cross_exarnined by counsel for accused No.3 and now the case is posted to 27.O3.2,O25 for filrther examination and pllced a copy of the e_ Courts daily statl- s before this Court anrl at this stage, the ' 1zozz1 :_eqcc zsz 4 petitioner is not entitled to seek bail.

5. 1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court of India in X w. State of Rajasthan and anotherz.

6. Having considered the rival subrnissions rnadc by the respective parties and after perusal of the material availablc on record, it reveals tlrat there are specific allegatior-rs levelled against the petitioner to attract the offence under Sections 3O2, 201 read with Section lO9,2O2 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of thc SCs/STs (POA) Amendrnent Act, 2O15. The petitioner earlier approached this Court and filed Crirninal Petition No.9938 of 2024 for grant of bail and the same was disrnissed on O7.1O.2O24. From perusal of the e-courts daily status, it reveals that the trial in S.C.No.387 of 2023 was already comrnenced and on 21.03.2025 PWs. I to 3 were cross- exarnined by the counsel for accused No.1 and PW.3 was cross- exarnined by the counsel for accused No.3 and the case is posted to 27 .O3.2025 for further exarnination.

7. In X v. State of Rajasthan supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court specihcally held at paragraph 14, which reads as follows: "Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, 2 z-z+ scc online 3539/ -,. . . "t*- .,,., 5 rlacoily, etc., once the trial commences ar rd the prosecution r;tarts ex:rmining its witne sses, the Court b,: it thc Trial Court or thc High Court should be loath in en terraining the bail rrpplication of the accused." il. 'lhe judgment which is relied on -b] the learned counsel for t1e petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circun-rstatrces of the case on the grouni that in the case on hand, the rrial was already comrnenced beibre the trial Court.

9. Iior the foregoing reasons and r so taking into consicleratron the gravity of the offer-rce, thr s Cor-rrt does not lind aly grottnd to enlarge the petitioner on ba;I. 1O. Acr:ordingly, the Criminal Petition is disrnissed. Misccllaneous applications, pending if aly, shall stand closed. Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL IIEPUTY REGISTRAR n,, //TRUE COPY// i \sEcttott oFFrcER To,

1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Offences Und,lr SCs & STs (POA) AclCum-\/ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar.

2. The Station House Officer, Adullapurnet Police Statior, Vanasthalipuram. 3. One CC to Sri. P Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies GE/SWT W- HIGH COURT DATED: 2810312025 ORDER CRLP.No.2463 of 2025 1'l E S 14, 16 o ( ic]L\ ir_ 12 SEP m5 ( .a r.) r/ l', r .,'' \i CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED I q 1,r