CRLP/8051/2026 of Badugu Naveen, Vs The State of Telangana on 4 June 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking grant of bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as sole accused in Crime No.56 of 2026 of Dharmapuri Police Station, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS')

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 16.03.2026, the de-facto complainant has lodged a report before the police stating that she is resident of Dharmapuri and eking out her livelihood by doing Coolie work and she is having one daughter and one son and her daughter namely Badugu Ramya was married to the petitioner/accused about 3 years back and it was love marriage. It is further stated that for about 3 years they lived amicably and thereafter, the petitioner started harassing her daughter suspecting her character and used to come in a drunken condition and harass her daughter physically and mentally and used to scold her and beat her. Inspite of their admonishing, the petitioner did not change his attitude and due to the harassment, her daughter came over to their house about 5 months back and living with them. While So, on 16-03-2026 at about 8-30 p.m., the petitioner came to their house and called her daughter and when her daughter came out of the house, with an intention to kill her he sprinkled petrol on her, which he brought along with him and lit fire with a match box and they i.e., herself and her husband extinguished the fire with another saree, but by that time her body was burnt and the said incident was witnessed by her villagers namely Bollarapu Laxmi and Bollarapu Raja Narasu. Hence. she requested to take necessary action.

3. Thus, basing on the complaint, the police authorities have registered the present case under Sections 85 and 109 of the BNS, arrested the petitioner/accused on 17.03.2026, and remanded him to judicial custody, and since then, he is languising in the judicial custody

4. Heard Mr. D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though the de-facto complainant has made allegations regarding harassment and suspicion entertained by the petitioner/accused against the victim, no specific instances in support thereof have been narrated in the complaint. It is contended that, except for the incident in question, the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is funher submitted that the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the present Criminal Petition.

6. On the other hand, the leamed Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed \ the grant of bail and contended that specific and serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and that a perusal of the remand report, case diary, and the statements of the witnesses examined by the respondent- police would disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the allegation that the petitioner - poured petrol on the victim and set her ablaze itself demonstrates his criminal intention and the gravity of the offence alleged against him. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and the medical reports relating to the injuries sustained by the victim are yet to be received from the concerned medical authorities. Therefore, it is prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and in view of the gravity of the offence along with the serious allegations leveled. against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Thus, this Criminal Petition is'devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew the application after a while. Misceilaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/- B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII OFFICER

1. The Judicial ttlagistrate of First Class at Dharmapuri, Jagtial District

2. The Station House officer, Dharmapuri p.s., Jagtial District

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.[OUT]

4. One CC to Sri. D. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl

5. Two CD {li;pies To, 4y. VC/KA

HIGH COURT DATED: 04106i2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.8051 at 2026 DISMISSING 1 i1i: CRIMINAL PETITiON. o 1tlE STA [$ lurEt

* DgSP q Jo 2ot t % b