W.S.V. Satyanarayana v. Director of Tribal Welfare, A.P., at Hyderabad and others

Order

Criminal Petition No.6745 of 2025 filed by 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 2 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. 3

Heard Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P.Vivek, learned counsel 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. 4

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

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 others1; and

2. Chinni Appa Rao v. State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another2

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 1 2 (1996) 1 ALT 170 (2016) 1 ALD (Crl) 545 6 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 7 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 another3;

2. Mamta Nair v. State of Rajasthan and another4;

3. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others5;

4. Gudur Sandeep Reddy and others v. State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor6. 3 4 5 6