Yeduguri Sandinti Bhaskar Reddy vs The State

Telangana High Court

Yeduguri Sandinti Bhaskar Reddy vs The State on 3 May, 2024

Author: K.Lakshman

Bench: K.Lakshman

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

        CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3044 AND 3046 OF 2024

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections - 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to grant regular bail to the petitioners herein/A.6 and A.7 in S.C.No.1 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against them are punishable under sections 120-B read with Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').

2. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3044 of 2024, Sri Ch.Siddardha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3046 of 2024, Sri Anilkumar Tenwar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri B.Nalin Kunar, learned Senior counsel representing Ms.Tekuru Swetcha, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.

3. The petitioner herein are A.6 and A.7 and the offences alleged against them are under Sections 120-B read with Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The allegations leveled against them are that A.6 is close associate 2 of A.8, A.7 and A.5. As per the investigation conducted by CBI, he was found active in the intervening night of 14/15.03.2019 and he had visited the house of A.8 and A.7 several times besides other relevant places. He was having knowledge of death of the deceased early in the morning around 3.30 - 4.00 A.M. on 15.03.2019. He had prior knowledge of conspiracy and in order to facilitate the act amongst the co-accused persons, he had taken leave on 15.03.2019 by submitting leave application on 14.03.2019. He visited the house of A.8/A.7 on 13.03.2019 and 14.03.2019 in the evening, while A.2 also visited the house of A.8/A.7. He had visited the house of A.8/A.7 in the early morning of 15.03.2019, accompanied A.8 and A.5 for destruction of evidence and thus he was fully aware of the murder of the Deceased and thereafter, he accompanied A.8 and others at the residence of the Deceased. He was also involved in the destruction of evidence at the scene of crime as he called his father Gajjela Jaya Prakash Reddy at 6.35 A.M. on 15.03.2019 soon after he arrived at the residence of the Deceased in conspiracy with other accused for applying cotton and bandages on grievous injuries of the dead body of the Deceased to conceal the same. Therefore, he is also part of criminal conspiracy for murder of the Deceased and destruction of the evidence at the scene of offence.

4. The allegation against A.7 is that he conspired with other accused in committing murder of the Deceased and also screening of evidence. He is the father of A.8, sitting Member of Kadapa Parliamentary Constituency. He is a close relative of the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

5. Vide common order dated 04.09.2023 in Crl.P.Nos. 7545 and 7565 of 2023, this Court dismissed the bail applications filed by the petitioners herein/A.6 and A.7. Vide order dated 11.03.2024 in Crl.P.No.11606 of 2023, this Court granted bail to A.5 on imposition of certain conditions. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they are also standing on the same footing and to maintain parity, they are also entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Vide judgment dated 29.11.2022 in W.P.(Crl) No.169 of 2022 filed by 2nd respondent and her mother, the Apex Court considering the apprehension expressed by them, transferred the trial from CBI Special Court, Kadapa to CBI Special Court, Hyderabad. Paragraph Nos.10 to 14 are relevant and the same are extracted below:-

10. Even two key witnesses, namely, Shaik Dastagiri and Ranganna are already given the police protection under the Witnesses Protection Scheme. 2018, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, considering the life threat perception. Even in the 4 response to the present petition, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also produced the order passed by the competent authority granting police protection to two witnesses.

11. As observed hereinabove, one of the witnesses who was to record his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not appeared for recording of his statement, though initially he volunteered to give the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The reason seems to be that thereafter his suspension order has been revoked and he has been taken back on duty.

12. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it emerges that one of the key witnesses namely K.Gangadhar Reddy, though initially he volunteered to give his statement under Section 164 CrPC and the CBI submitted an application to record his statement under Section 164 CrPC, thereafter he did not turn up to get his statement recorded and on the contrary he made a statement before the media that he was pressurized by the CBI. That thereafter he died under suspicious circumstances.

13 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that apprehension on the part of the petitioners being daughter and wife of the Deceased that there may not be a fair trial and that there may not be any independent and fair investigation with respect to further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence at the scene of incident is imaginary and/or has no substance at all. The petitioners being daughter and wife of the Deceased have a fundamental right to get justice as victim and they have a legitimate expectation that criminal trial is being conducted in a fair and impartial manner and uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to transfer the trial and further investigation on larger company and destruction of evidence to the State other than the State of Andhra Pradesh.

14. As per the settled position of law, justice is not to be done but the justice is seen to have been done also. As per the settled position of law, free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system. However, at the same tune, looking to the large number of witnesses to be examined during the trial and no hardship is caused to those witnesses, we are of the opinion that instead of transferring the trial to New Delhi, it may be transferred to CBI Special Court at Hyderabad.

7. Therefore, it is apt to note that in the order dated 04.09.2023, Crl.P.Nos.7545 and 7565 of 2023 filed by the petitioners herein, this Court held that prima facie, there are serious allegations against both the petitioners. A.7 is father of A.8 and is close relative of present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh State. Most of the witnesses are from the State of Andhra Pradesh. A.8 is sitting Member of Parliament from Kadapa Loksabha Constituency,

8. A.6 has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the Investigating Officer Mr. Ram Singh. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to the Police vide order dated 16.02.2022 and police registered a case in Cr.No.29 of 2022 against the said Investigating Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 195-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. He has filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6 to quash the proceedings in the said crime vide Crl.P.No.1258 of 2022 and vide order dated 23.02.2022 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati granted stay of all further proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

9. It is also relevant to note that prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein and other accused. P.W.9, the then Circle Inspector has mentioned the role of the petitioners and others in his statement given to CBI under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He also expressed his willingness to give statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He was placed under suspension and the same was revoked thereafter. He has addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa stating that CBI pressurized him to turn as an approver. P.Ws.2 and 3 gave a statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. stating that A.5 told him that he along with A.7 and A.8 planned the murder of the deceased, got it executed through some new persons. Though he agreed to give statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, subsequently he refused to give the said statement.

10. It is also apt to note that two witnesses died in suspicious circumstances.

11. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel contended that except statement of A.4 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there is nothing against the petitioners herein. The said statement of A.4 recorded under Section 161 and 164 and 306 of Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon. He is a hide assassinate.

12. The order of pardon to A.4 was challenged by A.1 and A.3 in Crl.P.Nos.6976 and 6980 of 2021. Vide order dated 16.02.2022, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, dismissed the said petitions. In the said order, the High Court considered the principle laid down by the Apex Court in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal 1 and also four grounds enumerated therein to interfere with the order on the ground of pardon. The said order was challenged in the Apex Court and vide order dated 10.10.2022, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP. Thereafter, the ground of pardon to the Approver i.e. Shaik Dasthagiri (A.4) attained finality.

13. It is settled principle that it is not necessary for the Court to assign elaborate reasons regarding the prosecution case while granting or rejecting bail. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in Rohit Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan 2. While considering bail application, analyzing the statements of prosecution witnesses is 1 2001 CrlLJ 1905 2 2023 (2) LS 109 SC 8 impermissible. The said principle was also held by the Apex Court in Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary 3

14. A.4 turned as approver. A.1 to A.3, the petitioners herein/A.6 and A.7 are in jail. This Court granted bail to A.5 and anticipatory bail to A.8. The same are under Challenge before the Apex Court vide SLP (Crl.) No.3448 of 2024 and SLP (Crl.)No.4448 of 2024 respectively. The same are pending. Default bail granted to A.1 was cancelled by this Court considering the statement made by the CBI that A.1 is interfering with the investigation.

15. As discussed supra, prima facie, there are serious allegations against both the petitioners/A.6 and A.7.

16. A.8, father of A.7, is a sitting Member of Parliament from Kadapa Parliament Constituency. They are highly influential persons. All the witnesses are from the State of Andhra Pradesh and thus there is every possibility of the petitioners herein threatening/influencing the witnesses in which event, it may not be possible to the trial Court to conduct trial in a fair and transparent manner. Conducting fair trial is integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 551 = (2023) 6 SCC 123 9

17. As discussed supra, this Court granted anticipatory bail to A.8. A.4 filed a petition vide Crl.P.No.2960 of 2023 seeking cancellation of the said anticipatory bail granted to A.8 and it is pending. 2nd respondent has challenged the said order before the Apex Court and the same is pending. Considering the said aspects vide order dated 04.09.2023, this Court dismissed the bail applications of the petitioners herein/A.6 and A.7.

18. With regard to parity, it is relevant to note that this Court vide order dated 11.03.2024 granted bail to A.5 considering the fact that A.5 is in jail from 17.11.2021. He has been suffering from severe cervical spondylitis and recently underwent surgeries twice to his left shoulder displacement. He has severe loss of appetite and lost 10 kilos of weight since the date of remand and collapsed in the prison premises on 17.02.2023. He is under continuous treatment. He has been put on medication without disclosing diagnosis. He has filed medical reports in proof of the same. On consideration of the said aspects, more particularly health condition, this Court granted bail to A.5 on imposition of certain conditions. Therefore, A.6 cannot seek parity. Moreover, there are specific allegations against him. He has applied leave and he was part of 10 conspiracy in committing murder of the Deceased and destruction of evidence.

19. The petitioner/A.7 has also filed medical note dated 18.09.2023 issued by Deputy Surgeon, Medical Officer, Central Prison, Hyderabad. The trial Court has granted interim bail to him 5 times on medical grounds. In the said medical note, there is specific mention that his health condition is unstable. In the discharge summary, dated 02.11.2023, it is stated that in case of bleeding/severe pain at the puncture site, severe breathlessness, giddiness, chest pain, rapid palpitations, any loss of consciousness, severe acidity with abdominal pain, black coloured stools, loss of speech, severe weakness in any limb, immediately report to the doctor within thirty minutes of symptoms.

20. Referring to the same, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, would submit that A.7 is also suffering from mental illness and his health condition is unstable. He is entitled for parity with A.5. He seeks enlargement of bail to A.7. But learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for 2nd respondent contended that that vide order dated 04.09.2023, this Court dismissed the bail applications of A.6 and A.7. A.7 surrendered before the Superintendent of Jail on completion of 11 interim bail period granted to him on 01.12.2023. Prior to 04.09.2023 and after 01.12.2023, there is no complaint of health of the petitioner herein/A.7. Therefore, the said medical record was created for the purpose of the present bail application. Hence, he cannot seek parity with A.5.

21. It is apt to note that A.7 underwent cataract surgery in the right eye. Considering the same, CBI Court granted him escort bail. The same was extended. He is suffering with obstructive sleep apnea, he was advised to be on CPAP after a week. He was later advised to undergo pulmonary vein isolation by cryo ablation for his artrial fibrillation. Considering the same and also the report of the Medical Director, AIG hospital, Hyderabad, trial Court granted/extended escort bail to him. It is also relevant to note that, the CBI Court had constituted a Medical Board consisting of two Doctors appointed by the Director, Directorate of Medical Education, to examine the health condition of A.7, to report on the same and also the follow-up treatment required to him after eryo ablation procedure. Considering the same, CBI Court granted escort bail to A.7 and the same was extended.

22. He is now 72 years old and suffering with the old age health ailments. In support of the same, he has filed medical reports issued by 12 AIG Hospital, Hyderabad. In the discharge summary, dated 02.11.2023 of the said hospital, it is mentioned that in case of bleeding/severe breathlessness, giddiness, chest pain, rapid palpitations, any loss of consciousness, severe acidity with abdominal pain, black colored stools, loss of speech, severe weakness in any limbs, immediately report to the doctor within 30 minutes of symptoms.

23. The contentions of both learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI and Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned senior counsel representing 2nd respondent that the A.7 has created the said medical reports to file the present application seeking bail is without any basis. As discussed supra, learned CBI Court has constituted Medical Board consisting of two doctors appointed by Director, Directorate of Medical Education.

24. As discussed supra, A.5 was in jail from 17.11.2021 and he underwent shoulder replacement surgery twice, he collapsed in the jail twice. Considering the same, this Court granted bail to him. Therefore, A.6 cannot seek parity. He is in jail from 16.04.2023. Prima facie, there are serious allegations against him. The role played by him in commission of offence is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

25. A.7 is in jail from 22.04.2023. He is also suffering from various old age ailments and therefore he can claim parity. He is entitled for bail.

26, With regard to contention of Sri T .Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel that, except statement of A.4, google take out relied upon by the CBI is not supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the same cannot be considered while deciding bail application. It is for the trial Court to consider the said aspect.

27. As discussed supra, at the cost of repetition, it is relevant to note that anticipatory bail granted by this Court to A.8 is under challenge before the Apex Court and it is pending. Regular bail granted to A.5 by this Court is also under challenge before the Apex Court and it is also pending. Crl.P.No.3575 of 2023 filed by A.1 and A.3 challenging the pardon granted to A.4 is also pending before this Court.

28. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Lt. Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs The State Of Maharashtra 4, Babu Singh vs. State of U.P. 5 would contend that second bail application for bail when first bail application was dismissed is maintainable. There is no dispute that second bail application is maintainable and the accused has to satisfy 4 (2018) 11 SCC 458 5 (1978) 1 SCC 579 14 this Court that there is change of circumstances much less substantial change of circumstances. In the present case, A.6 failed to establish that there is change of circumstances much less substantial change of circumstances. A.7 underwent surgery, suffering with the aforesaid health issues. He has also placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Kamaljit Singh v State of Punjab 6 Avtar Singh v State of Punjab, 7 Vikram Singh v CBI, 8 Abhishek Tripathi v State of Uttar Pradesh, 9 and Ramesh Bhavan Rathore v Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana 10.

29. Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Neeru Yadav vs. Stated of U.P. 11 wherein the Apex Court considered that the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. Apex Court held that it is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order 6 (2005) 7 SCC 226 7 (2010) 15 SCC 529 8 (2020) 12 SCC 660 9 (2020) 18 SCC 441 10 (2021) 6 SCC 230 11 (2016) 15 SCC 422 15 situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of the society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective.

30. In the light of the same, the allegation leveled against A.7 is that he has conspired with the other accused, committed murder of the Deceased and screened the evidence. His name was mentioned in the second supplementary charge sheet. The matter is at pre-trial stage. The prosecution has to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. The apprehension of CBI and 2nd respondent is that he may threaten the witnesses and interfere with fair trial. If he does so, they can file applications seeking cancellation of bail. He is suffering with various health issues.

31. Learned Special Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State ( NCT) 12 and would contend that both the petitioners/A.6 and A.7 are in jail from one year is not a ground to grant bail to them. The said aspect was also held in Gobarbhai Narabhai Singala vs. State of Gujarat 13. Therefore, granting of interim bail five times to A.7 by CBI Court is also not a 12 (2018) 12 SCC 129 13 (2008) 3 SCC 775 16 ground to consider bail application to grant bail to A.7. But in the present case, A.7 is suffering with various health issues which is evident from the medical reports issued by AIG hospital, Hyderabad.

32. As discussed supra, A.6 is not entitled for bail and the criminal petition filed by him is liable to be dismissed.

33. As discussed supra, all the witnesses in the present case are from the State of Andhra Pradesh. The apprehension of the CBI as well as 2nd respondent is that A.7 may threaten witnesses and interfere with the fair trial. He is father of A.8 who is sitting Member of Kadapa Parliamentary Constituency and close relative of present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

34. The Crl.P.No.3046 of 2024 filed by A.6 is dismissed. However, Crl.P.No.3044 of 2024 filed by the petitioner/A.7 is allowed granting bail to him on the following conditions:-

i. The petitioner herein/A.7 is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for likesum each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

ii. Petitioner shall report before Central Crime Station (CCS) Hyderabad, weekly once i.e. on every Tuesday between 10 A.M. to 5 PM.

iii. Petitioner herein shall not interfere with the trial in S.C. No.1 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in any manner directly or indirectly. iv. The petitioner herein shall not enter into State of Andhra Pradesh where almost all the witnesses in the present case are residing, without permission of the trial Court..

v. The petitioner shall surrender his original passport before the trial Court and shall not leave the country without permission of the trial Court.

vi. Liberty is granted to the CBI and 2nd respondent to seek cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner/A.7 in the event of petitioner/A.7 interfering with the trial in S.C.No.1 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad and threatens any witness.

vii. The petitioner herein shall not indulge in any criminal acts which will hamper peace and harmony.

viii. The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial Court in concluding the trial in S.C.No.1 of 2023.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petitions, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date:03.05.2024.

vvr