Telangana High Court
Kotla Naveen, vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.9412 AND 9420 OF 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Crl.P.No.9412 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/A.2 and Crl.P.No.9420 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners/A.1 and A.3 in Cr.No.30 of 2025 of Suryapet Rural Police Station, Nalgonda District. These criminal petitions are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS') by the respective petitioners seeking regular bail in connection with the above crime.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint stating that he had one daughter, Swetha, and one son, Krishna alias Mala Banti, aged about 30 years, who had completed B. Pharmacy and was engaged in real estate business. His son and one Kotla Naveen, along with Kotla Vamshi of Pillalamarri village, were brothers, and their father, Kotla Saidulu, belonged to the Goud community. Byru Mahesh, also belongs to the Goud caste and resident of Tallagadda, Suryapet, was their family friend. The complainant's son and Kotla Naveen's sister, Bhargavi, were in love and decided to marry, but Bhargavi's parents did not approve. As both were 2 majors, they got married on 07.08.2024 at Sri Laxmi Narsimha Swamy Temple, Gopalayapelli, without informing anyone. Bhargavi's father then lodged a missing complaint, which led to police counselling, where Bhargavi stated she married on her own free will. The couple thereafter stayed at the house of the complainant's mother-in-law in Mammillagadda, Suryapet. Bhargavi's brothers, Kotla Naveen and Kotla Vamshi, and their friend, Byru Mahesh, allegedly bore a grudge over the inter- caste marriage and threatened to kill the complainant's son. On 26.01.2025, around 5:00 p.m., after overhearing Bhargavi speaking to Byru Mahesh, the complainant's son left home on his scooty, saying Mahesh had called him, but did not return. The next morning, he was found dead near Cheruvu Thumu, Pillalamarri outskirts, with blood injuries on his face. The complainant alleged that the accused conspired and murdered his son due to the inter-caste marriage, abandoned the body, and fled. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case under Sections 103(1), 61(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against A1 to A6.
3. Heard Sri Vasiraju Kalki Charan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A.2 in Crl.P.No.9412 of 2025, Sri 3 P.Vivek, learned counsel appearing for petitioners/A.1 and A.3 in Crl.P.No.9420 of 2025, Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- State and Sri V.Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S.M.Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.P.No.9420 of 2025.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence much less the alleged offences. The allegations made in the written report are vague, baseless, unfounded and false. The police registered the crime without conducting any preliminary investigation. Learned counsel also contended that it is settled principle that Christianity does not recognize caste and according to the complainant he retired as a pastor in Church which clearly shows that he embraced Christianity. Once a person embraces and converts into a Christian, he ceases to belong to scheduled caste. As per the constitution, no person who professes other than Hinduism, Sikh, Jain and Buddhism shall not be a member of scheduled caste. As such the complainant does not belong to scheduled caste. Further, A.5 and A.6 in this case are already granted 4 bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.6746 of 2025 and Crl.P.No.6751 of 2025 respectively.
5. Learned counsel further contended that even in the charge sheet there is no incriminating material against the petitioners except the confession statement of other accused which is inadmissible. Further, investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. As such, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is also not necessary. The petitioners are in jail from 29.01.2025 and they are languishing in jail for the last 176 days. That the petitioner/A.3 is a student and his career is being affected due to long incarceration in jail. As such requested this Court to grant bail to the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the alleged offences are heinous in nature. It is an honor killing only because of his caste the deceased was murdered by the accused. As such, requested the Court to dismiss these petitions.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.P.No.9420 of 2025 vehemently opposed bail stating that in this type of offences, bail cannot be granted, as it is against 5 the society and heinous in nature. Therefore, it has to be strictly tried by putting the accused in jail. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5819 of 2020 and batch, Mamta Nair Vs State of Rajasthan and another 1, Virupakshappa Gouda and another Vs State of Karnataka and another 2, Bhagwan Das Vs State (NCT of Delhi) 3 and Shakti Vahini Vs Union of India and Others 4 and prayed to dismiss the bail petitions.
8. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record, the allegations are that A.2 called the deceased as per their plan and A.1 and A.3 together killed the deceased only on the ground that the deceased had married their sister. There are no changed circumstances from the earlier bail application which was dismissed by this Court and considering the past history of the accused, though investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed due to severity of the offence, and in view of the observations made in the judgments cited by the learned Senior 1 (2021) 7 Supreme Court Cases 442 2 (2017) 5 Supreme Court Casts 406 3 (2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 396 4 (2018) 7 Supreme Court Cases 192 6 counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the petitioners are not entitled for bail and these bail petitions are liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :18.08.2025 Rds 7 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.9412 AND 9420 OF 2025 DATE : 18.08.2025 Rds