Satish Batcha, v. The State Of Telangana Through S.H.O.P.S. Abids

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2725 OF 2026 DATE : 12.03.2026 Between :

Satish Batcha ...

Petitioner/Accused And The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O, P.S. Abids, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ... Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is accused in Crime No.31 of 2026 of Abids Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 105 and 287 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2026 at about 16:30 hours, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that is an employee at Batcha Furniture Castle, situated beside Hindi Prachar Sabha, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the past twenty-three years and has been residing in a servant room located in the upper cellar of Sai Vishwas Chambers, Batcha Furniture Castle. The building consists of two cellars, and the complainant has been residing in the upper cellar, that one Mrs. Bibin Bebi, aged about 50 years, was residing with her family in a room in the cellar of the same building and was also working as a watchwoman at Sai Vishwas Chambers.

On the day of incident, the complainant and his wife had gone out for work, leaving their children, namely Praneeth, aged about 14 years, and Akhil, aged about 7 years, in the cellar room, while Mrs. Bibin Bebi was present in her room and her children had gone out for work. At about 12:30 PM, screams were heard from the cellar and fire and smoke started emanating from the area.

smoke. They immediately dialed Dial-100 and informed the police about the incident, following which DRF and Fire Brigade personnel arrived at the spot and took steps to extinguish the fire. It was found that the complainant's two sons, were trapped inside the cellar and caught in the fire, and due to the intensity of the flames and heavy smoke there was grave danger to the lives of those inside. It was stated that the ramp and cellar area, where the rooms were located, had been completely filled with plastic furniture goods and were being used as godowns. The complainant had earlier informed the owner, that storing furniture goods in the cellar was dangerous and could pose a serious risk to their lives in case of any untoward incident, but the accused ignored the same. It was alleged that if the ramp had not been blocked with furniture goods, the children could have escaped from the accident. Hence, he requested the police to take necessary action against the accused, basing on which the present crime is registered against the accused for the above offences.

3.

Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and he is falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is doing furniture business by obtaining all permissions from the concerned departments. Initially the police have registered crime for the offence under Section 110 of BNS and later altered the section of law to 105 and 287 of BNS which does not attract to the petitioner. He further contended that the police have filed custody petition which was allowed and that no investigation is pending. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 25.01.2026 and that his health is also not keeping good. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed bail stating that the accused is the owner of furniture shop and had employed about 18 to 20 workers in his establishment and large quantities of furniture were stored throughout the building. The first and second cellars were illegally used as godowns, while the ground, first, second, third and fourth floors were used for furniture business operations, though only two portions were meant for residential use. During the incident, D.1 to D.3 were trapped in the cellar and, in an attempt to rescue them, D.4 Mohd. Imtiyaz and D.5 Syed

Habeebuddin Quadri, who were employees of the accused, entered the premises along with other workers but also got trapped in the flames, while the remaining workers managed to escape. As a result, five persons, including two minor children, lost their lives and the furniture stock was completely destroyed. He further contended that the accused failed to follow mandatory fire-safety norms and had illegally used the second-level cellar for storing furniture and installed an electric junction there, due to which short circuit might have occurred and the accused had also provided residential accommodation in the first cellar, which is not permissible. The statements of LWs.

1 to 5 and 9 to 16 have been recorded and the post-mortem reports of all the deceased have been received, while the investigation is still pending for collection of further evidence and the FSL report. Therefore, it is contended that the fire incident occurred due to the gross negligence of the accused and, considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that he is the owner of the premises and employer of key witnesses, there is likelihood that he may influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence if released on bail. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the allegation against the petitioner is that he failed to take proper care and, without obtaining necessary permission, used the cellar of the building as a godown for storing furniture goods and also allowed one of the cellars to be used for residential accommodation by the deceased family, though the same was not fit for human habitation, which prima facie indicates knowledge and negligence on the part of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.01.2026 and that the investigating officer has already examined LWs.1 to 31 and collected the technical evidence.

It is further contended that the petitioner has always been compassionate towards his employees and that the incident was an unfortunate accident, and that the petitioner had neither knowledge nor intention to cause such an occurrence. It is also submitted that there have been no complaints against the petitioner from his employees and that many of them have been working in his establishment for several years.

to grant regular bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions :

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the II-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 12.03.2026 Rds

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2725 OF 2026 Date: 12.03.2026 Rds