HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3781 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the order dated 06.04.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2021 in Crl.M.P.No.2070 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad, in Crl.M.P.No.656 of 2014 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, in Crl.M.P.No.538 of 2014 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda in S.C.No.226 of 2015.
2. Heard Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and perused the record.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-
i) The petitioners herein are A.1 to A.9 in S.C.No.226 of 2015 pending on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 147,148, 120-B, 153(A), 302, 307 and 201 read with 149 of IPC. The said case vide S.C.No.226 of 2015 is posted for trial and schedule is fixed.
ii) The State filed a petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2021, seeking to cancel the bails granted to the petitioners herein in Crl.M.P.No.2070 of 2014, dated 08.05.2014; in Crl.M.P.No.538 of 2014 dated 06.06.2014 and Crl.M.P.No.656 of 2014 dated 02.07.2014 in Cr.No.28 of 2014 pending on the file of the 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 Station House Officer, Kodad Police Station. The Court below vide order dated 06.04.2021 cancelled the bails granted to the petitioners herein in the above said petitions.
iii) On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein, wife of the deceased, the Police, Kodad Town Police Station had registered a case in Cr.No.28 of 2014 against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, the Police have laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences and the same is pending before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, Suryapet, vide S.C.No.226 of 2015.
4) At that stage, State through Inspector of Police, Kodad, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, Suryapet, filed the above said petition vide Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2021 to cancel the bails granted to the petitioners on the following grounds:-
i) The petitioners/A.1 to A.9 are threatening the witnesses in S.C.No.226 of 2015 and they are making hectic efforts to mend the witnesses, forcing the witnesses to have compromise with them and also threatening them that they will kill them in the same way that they killed the deceased in this case, if they did not compromise the matter with the petitioners herein/A.1 to A.9.
ii) The petitonerrs/A.1 to A.9 conspired to cause breach of peace in the village and creating law and order problem with an intention to threat the witnesses. The 2nd respondent/defaco- complainant (L.W.1) several times approached the Inspector of Police, Kodad town and informed him that the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 are threatening her and other witnesses. On 02.03.2021, L.W.1 appeared before the Court below, submitted a written complaint stating that the accused are threatening her and other witnesses. She is having life threat from the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 in the said case. Therefore, in those circumstances, the 2nd respondent and other witnesses are under fear and not in a position to give evidence. If the accused move in the village during the course of trial, they may cause severe fear to L.W.1 and also threaten the other witnesses and thereby they will cause hurdles for smooth trial of the case.
iii) The petitioners herein are having criminal background and they have involved in several cases. They are indulging in threatening witnesses and criminal cases registered against them. They are making hectic efforts to have acquittal in the said criminal cases by threatening the witnesses. Thus, the petitioners herein are creating law and order problem in the village and creating panic situation more particularly in Narsimulugudem village where the 2nd respondent and other witnesses are residing.
iv) On the complaint lodged by L.W.1 complaining threatening of witnesses in the present crime i.e. Cr.No.28 of 2014, police Munagala had registered a case in Cr.No.101 of 2014, against the petitioners /A.1 to A.8 for the offences under Sections 341, 506, 195 read with Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.633 of 2017. After full fledged trial, learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kodad, has convicted them by imposing 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 punishment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.12,000/-. During trial in C.C.No.633 of 2017, the petitioner Nos. 1 to A.8/A.1 to A.8 have threatened the witnesses. Therefore, another case in crime vide Cr.No.304 of 2019 was registered against them for the offences under Sections 195(A), 506 read with 34 IPC by the Police, Kodad town. After completion of investigation, they have filed a charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.1024 of 2019 which is pending. Therefore, the petitioners herein are having criminal background, involved in several criminal cases threatening the witnesses and therefore, on the said grounds, the 1st respondent-State has sought to cancel the bails granted to the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 pending in Cr.No.28 of 2014.
v) The petitioners herein resisted the said petition by way of filing counter stating that the bail is their right and the same cannot be cancelled in a routine manner. They never indulged in any case as alleged by the State more particularly threatening of witnesses.
vi) The allegations made against the petitioners herein are false, baseless and vague. They never misused the liberty granted to them while granting bail. The Police, without verifying the genuineness or truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the 2nd respondent, registered cases against the petitioners with an intention to cancel the bails granted to the petitioners and to harass them. There is no complaint against the petitioners herein to show that the petitioners herein are creating law and order problem and panic situation in the said village i.e. Narsimulugudem. The 2nd respondent has filed similar 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 petition seeking cancellation of bail and the same was dismissed. Against the judgment in C.C.No.633 of 2017, the petitioners/Accused therein have filed an appeal vide Crl.A.No.179 of 2019 and it is pending. C.C.No.1024 of 2019 is also pending for trial. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant has conspired with others to do away the life of the 2nd petitoner/A.2 and a case was registered, and after completion of investigation, the Police have laid charge sheet. A case vide S.C.No.16 of 2019 is pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, at Huzurnagar. The Police picket is being maintained in Narsimulugudem gram panchayat which is nearer to the house of the defacto-complainant. Therefore, the allegation of the 2nd respondent that the petitioners herein are creating law and order problem and also panic situation in the said village, are false and baseless.
5) The complaint, dated 02.03.2021 lodged by the 2nd respondent is also false and baseless. The vagueness of the allegations mentioned therein would reveal the said fact. The 2nd respondent has not mentioned the date, place, time etc., and alleged threatening in the complaint and the same would reveal that it is a false complaint as alleged by the petitioners herein by the 2nd respondent with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioners and to cancel the bails. The Inspector of Police, Kodad without verifying the genuineness, truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the 2nd respondent filed an affidavit alleging that the petitioners are threatening the witnesses, creating law and order problem in that village, which are baseless. 6
KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 There should be cogent and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail and bail cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner. With the said submissions, the petitioners sought to dismiss the petition filed by the State seeking cancellation of bail.
6) The Court below vide order dated 06.04.2021 allowed the Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2021 and cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners herein on the following grounds:-
i) The petitioners herein are having history of involvement in criminal cases. A case in Cr.No.101 of 2014 was registered against the petitioners 1 to 8/A.1 to A.8 on the allegations of threatening of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, The Police have laid charge sheet. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.633 of 2017 in which they were convicted and against which, an appeal vide S.C.No.16 of 2019 is filed by them which is pending.
ii) Another case vide C.C.No.1024 of 2019 was also registered against the petitioners herein on the very same allegations of threatening of the witnesses and the said case is pending. The 2nd respondent (L.W.1) herein, with criminal conspiracy with others, tried to do away the life of the A.2 herein and the said case vide S.C.No.16 of 2019 is also pending.
iii) The petitioners herein/A.1 to A.9 are threatening the witnesses in S.C.No.226 of 2015. The 2nd respondent has lodged a complaint on 02.03.2021 complaining that the petitioners herein are threatening the witnesses. The 2nd respondent and other witnesses are coming to the Court with Police escort. Some of the accused are 7 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 absenting intentionally to break the schedule and thus they are making efforts to delay the trial in one way or the other. On the said grounds, the Court below has cancelled the bails granted to the petitioners herein.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
7) Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the bail is a right and it is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a routine and mechanical manner. There should be overwhelming supervening circumstances for the purpose of cancellation of bail and the same are lacking in the present case. There are no specific allegations in the complaint, dated 02.03.2021. The said complaint is very vague and there is no mention about the date, time and place of the alleged threat by the petitioners herein given to the prosecution witnesses. Even then the Police have registered a case in Cr.No.68 of 2021. Against judgment in C.C.No.633 of 2017, an appeal was filed and it is pending and a case vide C.C.No.1024 of 2019 is also pending for trial. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are having criminal history and they are involved in the said two cases.
8) There are 37 witnesses in the said S.C.No.226 of 2015. Due to the present situation, it may take long time to complete the trial though schedule is fixed. The Courts below have granted bail to the petitioners herein way back in 2014 itself and since then they are on bail. There are no allegations of threatening the witnesses during the course of investigation. The 2nd respondent with a mala fide intention 8 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 to harass the petitioners, lodged the above said complaint, dated 02.03.2021 with vague allegations.
9) Placing reliance on the principle laid down by this Court in Kamireddy Shyam Naidu Vs. State of Telangana in Crl.A.No.2822 of 2020, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners herein would submit that the bail cannot be cancelled in a routine and mechanical manner and the Courts below though referred several judgments, without appreciating the real purport of the said judgment, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners herein.
10) With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to quash the impugned order and release the petitioners herein on bail.
CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
11) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that there are specific allegations that the petitioners have involved in two criminal cases and they have criminal history. There is specific allegation that the petitioners herein are threatening the witnesses and creating law and order problem in the village. There is panic situation. There is picket in the village. Several incidents took place in the said village and therefore, there is law and order problem. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the Police have registered a case in Cr.No.68 of 2021 against the petitioners herein under sections 195-A and 506 of I.P.C. The Court below, on consideration of the entire facts, antecedents of the petitioners and other circumstances, relying on the principle laid down 9 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 by the Apex Court and other Courts in various judgments, cancelled the bails granted to the petitioners herein and the it is a reasoned order.
12) With the said submissions, learned Public Prosecutor, sought to dismiss the present petition.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
13) The above said facts would reveal that the petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 9 in S.C.No.226 of 2015 and the offences alleged against them are under Sections 147,148, 120-B, 153(A), 302, 307 and 201 read with 149 of IPC. The allegations against the petitioners herein are that they have conspired together, formed into an unlawful assembly and committed brutal murder.
14) As per the record, it is also evident that the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 herein/A.1 to A.8 have involved in a case in Cr.No.101 of 2014 with the allegations of threatening of the witnesses in the present crime i.e.Cr.No.28 of 2014 during the course of investigation. The police after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against them and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.633 of 2017. Learned Magistrate after full fledged trial, convicted the petitioners 1 to 8/A.1 to A.8. An appeal filed by them is pending. They have also involved in C.C.No.1024 of 2019 on the very same allegations of the threatening of witnesses in C.C.No.633 of 2017 during trial. The said Calendar Case is pending. It is also relevant to note that the 2nd respondent (L.W.1) is also an accused in S.C.No.16 of 2019 and the allegations against her in the said case are that she, along with others, 10 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 conspired together and tried to do away the life of the 2nd petitioner/A.2. Thus, there are cases pending against the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, residents of the very same village i.e. Narsimulugudem, Munagala mandal, Suryapet district. In the counter filed before the Court below itself, the petitioners herein have admitted that there is police picket in the said village.
15) In the affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Kodad Town Police Station, it is stated that the petitioners herein/A.1 to A.9 are threatening the witnesses in this case and he has not mentioned any specific dates etc. Even in the complaint, dated 02.03.2021, there is no specific allegation about the date, time and place of the alleged threatening of the witnesses by the petitioners herein. However, a case in Cr.No.68 of 2021 is registered against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 195-A and 506 of IPC. Investigation is pending in the said case. The names of the petitioners herein are specifically mentioned.
16) At the same time, it cannot be ignored the antecedents of the petitioners herein. As discussed supra, they have involved in the above said two cases i.e. C.C.No.633 of 2017 and C.C.No.1024 of 2019. The allegations against the petitioners herein in the said cases are with regard to the threatening of the witnesses in the present case itself i.e. Cr.No.28 of 2014. There is law and order problem in the said village and therefore, the Police have arranged a picket in the said village. A perusal of charge sheet also would reveal that most of the witnesses are from the same village i.e. Narsimulugudem. They are 11 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 coming to the Court to give evidence with police escort every time. The said facts would reveal that cases and counter cases are pending between two groups of the said village.
17) The lis is involved in the present Criminal Petition i.e. cancellation of bail is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case in Raghubir Sing Vs. State of Bihar1 laid down certain guidelines/parameters for cancellation of bail which are as follows:-
i) The accused misused his liberty by indulging in similar criminal cases,
ii)) Interferes with the course of investigation,
iii)) attempts to tamper with the evidence or witnesses,
iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities,
v) there is likelihood of fleeing to another country,
vi) Attempts to make himself scare by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,
vii) Attempts to place beyond the reach of his surety etc.,
18) In Dolat ram Vs. State of Haryana2 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.
19) In Chinna Reddy Vs. N.Vidhyasagar Reddy3 it was held that the cancellation of bail cannot be at whims and fancies. The bail 1 (1986) 4 SCC 487 2 (1995) 1 SCC 349 3 1982 Crl.LJ 2183 12 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 can be cancelled only on specific grounds that the accused has committed misconduct or misuse of the terms of the bail.
20) In Kanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Court while dealing with an application filed to cancel the bail shall consider the gravity of crime, the character of evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim, witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from the justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and other grounds are required to be taken into consideration.
21) In Ms.X Vs. State of Telangana5, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring to the principle laid down by it in several other cases held that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case based on supervening event has been made out.
22) In Janapala Krishna Vs. State of AP6 it was held that a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of cancellation of bail is maintainable.
23) In Abdul Basit Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that since there is no express provision for review of the order granting bail exists under the Cr.P.C., the High Court becomes functus officio and Section 362 of Cr.P.C. applies barring review of the judgment and order of the Courts granting bail to the accused.
4 2012 (12) SCC 180 5 Crl.A.No.716 of 2018 dated 17.05.2018 6 (2015) 1 ALD (Crl) 409 7 (2014) 10 SCC 754 13 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021
24) This Court in Kamireddy Shyam Naidu supra, by referring to the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts and also considering the facts of the said case, where cancellation of bail was sought on the grounds of obtaining bail by playing fraud, by filing a created affidavit -cum- compromise etc., quashed the order passed by the Court below canceling the bail granted to the accused therein, on the ground that there was no fraud and no misrepresentation of facts by the accused therein while obtaining bail.
25) In view of the law laid down by this Court and Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, coming to the facts on hand, as discussed above, the petitioners herein have involved in two other criminal cases on the very same allegations of threatening the witnesses. On the complaint lodged by L.W.1 alleging that petitioner Nos.1 to 8/A.1 to A.8 have threatened the witnesses during the course of investigation at crime stage in Cr.No.28 of 2014, the Police have registered a case in Cr.No.101 of 2014. After completion of investigation, they have laid charge sheet against them and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.633 of 2017 which was ended in conviction. An appeal filed challenging the said judgment is pending. During the pendency of trial in the said case vide C.C.No.633 of 2014 another case in Cr.No.304 of 2019 was registered against them on the allegations of threatening the witnesses in C.C.No.633 of 2017. The Police, after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against them. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.1024 of 2019 for the 14 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 offences under Sections 195-A and 506 of IPC. The allegations in the present case i.e. S.C.No.226 of 2015 against the petitioners herein are that they have conspired together, formed into an unlawful assembly and murdered the deceased (husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant) brutally. The allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are serious and the gravity of the offences has to be looked into by the Court while dealing with an application for cancellation of bail. It is relevant to note that on the complaint lodged by L.W.1 alleging that the petitioners herein are threatening the witnesses in S.C.No.226 of 2015, a case in Cr.No.68 of 2021 was registered against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 195-A and 506 of I.P.C, and Investigation is pending. Thus, at every stage there is allegation of threatening of witnesses by the petitioners herein. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners herein that the allegations in the complaint dated 02.03.2021 are vague, no date, time and place are mentioned therein etc., cannot be accepted at this stage. The names of the petitioners herein are specifically mentioned in the said complaint, that First Information Report is not an encyclopedia and admittedly, investigation is pending in the said crime. Just because there is no specific mention about the time, place and date of the alleged threatening, it cannot be said that the bail granted to the petitioners herein cannot be cancelled.
26) It is also relevant to note that there is also allegation against L.W.1, that she along with others conspiring criminally, tried to do away the life of the 2nd petitioner/A.2 herein. A case vide 15 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 S.C.No.16 of 2019 is pending. There is law and order problem in the said village i.e. Narsimulugudem. There is a police picket in the said village arranged by the Police which is also not disputed by the petitioners herein/A.1 to A.9. In fact, they themselves mentioned the said fact in the counter affidavit filed by them before the Court below. It is the specific contention of the 2nd respondent and State that the witnesses are coming to the Court to give evidence in S.C.No.226 of 2015 with police escort every time. There is also mention of non- cooperation of accused in concluding trial. They are trying to prolong the trial in one ground or the other. The said Sessions Case is of the year 2015.
27) In view of the said grounds, considering the antecedents of the petitioners herein, according to this Court, the Court below has rightly cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners herein vide impugned order dated 06.04.2021. It is a reasoned order. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, the petitioners herein have failed to establish any ground for quashing the order impugned herein dated 06.04.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2021 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, in S.C.No.226 of 2015 by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the present petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
28) The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the fact that the Sessions Case is of the year 2015, trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial as 16 KL,J Crl.P. No.3781 of 2021 expeditiously as possible by strictly following the Standard Operating Procedure issued by this Court from time to time. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to move bail petition after completing the evidence of material witnesses in S.C.No.226 of 2015.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 08.06.2021.
vvr