Telangana High Court
Gajjala Uma Sankar Reddy vs The State on 18 November, 2024
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10802 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri M.Nagi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri. C.Dharma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.3, Sri Anil Tenwar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri S. Goutham, learned counsel for 2nd respondent.
2. The Criminal Petition is filed under Sections - 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') by petitioner herein /A.3 in S.C.No.1 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad to grant regular bail. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 302 and 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').
3. This is 1st bail application filed by the petitioner before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner filed three bail applications before trial Court before transfer of trial to the Principal Special Judge, CBI Cases, Hyderabad from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. He has filed one bail application in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. The bail application filed by the petitioner vide 2 Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2024 in S.C.No.1 of 2023 was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 06.08.2024.
4. As per the charge sheet filed by CBI, the allegations leveled against the petitioner herein are that the deceased Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy, former Member of Legislative Assembly of erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh and also former Member of Parliament, brother of former Chief Minister of erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh i.e. late Dr.Y.S.Raja Sekhar Reddy, and he is paternal uncle of ex-Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh i.e. Mr.Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy.
5. According to the prosecution, on 14/15.03.2019 in the morning hours, the deceased was brutally murdered and his body was found lying in a pool of blood in the bathroom attached to his bedroom. Plenty of blood was also found present in the bedroom. On the complaint lodged by Sri M.V.Krishna Reddy, Personal Assistant of the deceased, Police Pulivendula registered a case in Cr.No.84 of 2019 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. After inquest, the provision of law was altered to Section 302 of IPC.
6. Vide order dated 11.03.2020, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in W.P.No.3944 of 2019 and 1639 of 2020, entrusted the investigation to CBI to investigate into the allegations of larger 3 conspiracy and destruction of evidence and also directed the CBI, to complete investigation as expeditiously as possible and file final report.
7. In compliance with the said order, CBI registered a case bearing RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi on 09.07.2020 on after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet dated 26.10.2021 against A.1, A.2, the petitioner (A.3) and A.4, thereafter, they filed first supplementary charge sheet on 31.01.2022 and second supplementary charge sheet on 28.06.2023.
8. The allegations leveled against the petitioner herein/A.3 are that the petitioner had personal grudge/motive behind participation in conspiracy in execution of murder of the deceased. His brother namely Gajjala Jagadeeshwar Reddy, helped in campaigning of the deceased in MLC election, 2017 and he also used to maintain party fund of the deceased for day-to-day expenses. Deceased was also having one benami property of about Ac.16.00 guntas of agricultural land in name of his brother whose statement was recorded as P.W.36. Despite assistance rendered to the deceased in helping his political and personal affairs, petitioner suspected that the deceased was not giving any political space to the petitioner and his family members in the village sarpanch elections even on repeated requests.
4
9. According to the CBI, during investigation, it was further revealed that monetary consideration was the main motive behind participation in conspiracy of murder. The petitioner along with other co- accused promised to receive proportional share out of Rs. 40 Crores likely to be received from A.5 and others in lieu of execution of murder of the deceased. Out of the promised amount, Rs. 1 Crore each was given in advance to the petitioner along with other accused persons. A.4 turned as approver who disclosed that he had kept the received amount with his associate Syed Munna S/o Ismail. During investigation, an unexplained sum of Rs. 46,70,000/- was recovered and seized from the locker of Syed Munna.
10. It is further alleged that the statement under Section 161 of CrPC of Sri B. Ranganna (L.W.61), watchman of the deceased, was recorded and subsequently under Section 164 of CrPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamalamudugu, Kadapa District was recorded. He identified the petitioner during Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted at Central Prison, Kadapa by the learned Magistrate. He also identified all four accused including the petitioner herein. He further stated that he saw the petitioner and three others in the house of the deceased and also saw them leaving the house of the deceased on the 5 night of the incident. Thereafter, he went inside the bedroom and then bathroom wherein he found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. After committing murder, the petitioner and other three accused jumped the walls at the back side of the house and reached the place where the motorcycle was parked. All of them reached the residence of A.1 on 15.03.2019 at 05:30 AM, where A.1 assured them not to worry about police. He also assured them that he had cleaned up the scene of crime which he eventually did by going to the house of the deceased in the morning on 15.03.2019. The petitioner and three others dispersed in different directions.
11. It is further alleged that the petitioner was seen running on the road at around 3.15 AM through CCTV footage installed at Bridgestone shop near house of the deceased. The same was revealed from FSL report. The petitioner was also identified in CCTV footage by independent persons familiar with the petitioner since childhood. At around ten days after preparing the plan, the petitioner and A.2 killed the dog that lived in the house of the deceased by running over it by the Honda Amaze Car No. AP04 BF 8982 used by the petitioner. During the course of investigation, confessional statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. of A.4 was recorded wherein he stated that entire facts of the case 6 including the role played by the petitioner in the commission of offences. Vide order dated 26.11.2021, tender of pardon under Section 306 of CrPC was granted to A.4.
12. During the course of investigation, A.4 disclosed that around 10.02.2019, A.2 took him and the petitioner to the house of A.1 who informed that the deceased had not given him share out of the money received from Bangalore land settlement. A.1 told them to do away with the deceased and they all planned to kill the deceased including the dog which kept roaming near the house of deceased as it could be a hindrance to the execution of plan. A.4 in his statement also stated that the petitioner dropped A.1 near the house of the deceased on his motor cycle. Thereafter, the petitioner came and joined with them in drinking until 1.30 hours. The petitioner, A.2, A.4 who came behind the house of the deceased on bike and parked it there. Therefore, all of them jumped the boundary wall of the compound into empty plot and subsequently jumped into main compound. A.4 noticed Sri B.Ranganna sleeping. They knocked the side door. A.1 opened the door and let them inside. The deceased saw them and enquired about them. Thereafter, the deceased went into the bed room in the hall area and then, the petitioner informed the deceased that he has not done anything for them. The deceased made 7 argument with A.1. A.2 abused and punched the deceased who fell down. The petitioner herein asked A.4 to bring the axe and hit the deceased on forehead with the axe. When the deceased turned over, the petitioner herein hit on his head again with the axe. Blood started coming out of head of the deceased. A.2 hit 7 to 8 times on chest of the deceased with all his might. The petitioner herein handed over the axe to A.4 and told him to make sure that he does not get up. Then, the petitioner, A.1 and A.2 searched for the documents all over the house, then the deceased started shouting. Thereafter, A.4 hit him on the right palm with axe. The petitioner and other accused found some documents.
13. The petitioner and other accused forced the deceased to write a letter stating that one Prasad Driver killed him and do not leave him and also forced to sign below the letter. Thereafter, they kept the deceased in the bathroom and the petitioner again hit the deceased on his head with axe 5 to 6 times to make sure that the deceased was dead. Therefore, according to the CBI, the petitioner participated in the commission of offences alleged against him. He was also part of the conspiracy.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was arrested on 09.09.2021 and since then he is in jail. Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Sri B.Ranganna, 8 watchman, as eye witness on 21.07.2020 where he identified only three persons i.e. A.1, A.2 and A.4 and he described the other person as tall and thin. Even then, CBI has not arrested A.4. In his statement under Section 164 of CrPC, he confessed the commission of murder and explained the role of each accused. CBI facilitated A.4 in getting anticipatory bail by reporting 'no objection' to his petition seeking anticipatory bail. L.W.1 did not reveal the name of the petitioner at the time of recording his statement on 21.06.2021 and also statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC after lapse of 28 months of the incident. As per the investigation, the petitioner alone ran towards Kadapa road in front of Bridgestone shop. As per the confession of A.2 and as per the seizure, on 08.08.2021 at 22.10 hours, A.2 and the petitioner while escaping on motor cycle from the house of the deceased after committing murder, they used the same motor cycle to hid the blood stained axe after wrapping it in an old nighty cloth available in the side bag of the Pulsor Motor Cycle and both have preceded in a bike, reached near Nala (drainage) and threw away the said blood stained axe in Nala (drainage). After that, both went to the house of the petitioner. Thus, there are contradictory versions which would falsify the contention of the prosecution.
9
15. The Investigating Officer examined A.4 for the first time under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 25.08.2021, and under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 31.08.2021 and in his statement under Section 306 of Cr.P.C, he categorically stated that CBI called him to appear before them at Delhi on 03.03.2020 and he had been with them for 2 ½ months for investigation purpose. After returning from Delhi, the CBI started investigation and examined him under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by recording his statement, A.4 is not a credible witness and he is henchman of prosecution, he has planted other accused. There are contradictions in the confessional statement of A.4. This Court granted anticipatory bail to A.8, regular bails to A.2, A.5, A.6 and A.7. The petitioner herein is also standing on the same footing of A.2. He was arrested on 09.09.2021. Therefore, he is also entitled for regular bail to maintain parity. There are 294 witnesses and more than ten thousand documents. Therefore, there is no likelihood of commencement of trial in S.C.No.1 of 2023..
16. Whereas, Sri Anil Tenwar, learned Special Public Prosecutor and Sri S.Gowtham, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent would contend that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. His role was there in commission of the murder of the deceased. He assaulted the deceased with axe 7 to 8 times. There is also motive. He received 10 consideration. L.W.1 eye witness spoke the role of the petitioner/A.3. He was found in CCTV footage. The Investigating Officer obtained scientific evidence, to prove the same. The offences committed by the petitioner along with the other accused are serious and heinous in nature. He is having both money, man power and close contact with the other accused who were also influential persons. If he is released on bail, there is every possibility of interfering with the trial by threatening the witnesses in which event it is not possible for the trial Court to conduct fair trial. Both of them placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the following:-
1. Aminuddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1
2. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan 2
3. Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar 3
4. Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala 4
5. Masroor v. State of U.P. 5
6. Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh 6 1 (2021) 17 SCC276 2 (MANU/SC/0045/2005) 3 (MANU/SC/1274/2021) 4 (MANU/SC/0669/2008) 5 (MANU/SC/0683/2009) 6 (MANU/SC/0203/2002) 11 With the said submissions, both of them opposed the bail application filed by the petitioner.
17. As discussed supra, this is the first bail application filed by the petitioner before this Court and earlier he filed three bail applications before the trial Court. As discussed supra, according to the CBI, there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner/A.3. He actually participated in the offence physically. He directly hit the deceased with axe 7 to 8 times, thereafter jumped from the compound wall and left the house of the deceased. He was shown in CCTV footages.
18. L.W.61 is the eye witness. Perusal of his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. would reveal the names of A.1, A.2 and A.4. With regard to 4th person, he stated that the 4th person is tall and thin. He also stated that A.1, A.2 and A.4 used to come to the deceased house frequently. Except that, nothing was stated against the petitioner in his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, recorded on 21.07.2021. In his 161 CrPC statement recorded on 17.09.2021, he further stated that he identified three persons i.e. Shaik Dastagiri (A.4), Yadanti Sunil Yadav (A.2) and Thumallapalli Gangi Reddy (A.1) and 4th person is tall and lean and was wearing black colour half shirt. He can identify the tall and lean person if shown to him. Referring to the same, learned counsel for the 12 petitioner would submit that there is improvement in the statement of L.W.1 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. dated 21.07.2021 and 17.09.2021.
19. In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, L.W.61 stated that he saw four people who were roaming from the hall to bedroom as if they lost something. He knows three people. i.e. A.1, A.2 and A.4. 4th person is tall and thin. He has not seen him before. Therefore, he could not recognize him. He was wearing pant and shirt (half shirt). There are contradictions in the statements of A.4, recorded under Sections 161, 164 and 306 of CrPC. Though in the charge sheet, there is specific allegation against the petitioner herein that he along with A.2 escaped through streets on the Pulsor motor cycle bearing No.AP02 CG 2239. There was no TIP conducted with regard to the identification of the said vehicle.
20. Thus, according to the prosecution, the statement of L.W.1, A.4, CCTV footage and also TIP of L.W.61 are relevant with regard to the role played by the petitioner/A.3.
21. As discussed supra, prima facie, there are contradictions in the statement of L.W.61 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and Section 13 164 of Cr.P.C. He has not stated the name of the petitioner/A.3 and he has stated that 4th person is tall and thin.
22. In the TIP conducted on 25.09.2021, L.W.61 stated that he saw the petitioner/A.3 went on motor cycle from the premises of the deceased house. Prima facie, there are contradictions in his statement recorded under Section 161, 164 of Cr.P.C. and also TIP. However, they are triable issues which can be considered at the time of trial. Even recovery memorandum, dated 08.08.2021 would also reveal the said fact. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the CCTV footage which will be subject to proof during trial.
23. As discussed supra, prima facie, there are contradictions in the statement of A.4 recorded under Sections 161, 164 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. They are triable issues and the same will be considered at the time of trial by the trial court. This Court cannot analyze the statements of witnesses etc, while deciding bail application. As discussed supra, the petitioner herein is in jail from 09.09.2021. The aforesaid S.C.No.1 of 2023 is at the stage of compliance of Section 207 CrPC proceedings. According to the accused, CBI is responsible for the said delay. According to the prosecution, the accused are delaying the said compliance of Section 207 of CrPC proceedings. However, the fact 14 remains that S.C.No.1 of 2023 is at the stage of compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. proceedings since last one year four months. There is no dispute that 294 witnesses are yet to be examined and voluminous documents are to be perused to be marked.
24. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would contend that the petitioner herein/A.3 is prime accused and his bail cannot be considered till recording the statements of 5 crucial witnesses i.e. L.W.9, 31, 61, 110 and 218. Even to record statements of these witnesses, definitely it would take time considerable time. The petitioner is in jail from 09.09.2021. According to the CBI, the petitioner committed offences at the instance of A.7, A.8 who are on regular and anticipatory bail respectively. 2nd respondent has already filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeking cancellation of bails granted to them and the same are pending before the Apex Court. The apprehension of the CBI is that the petitioner may threaten the witnesses and interfere with the trial in which event, the trial Court will not be in a position to conduct fair trial. If the petitioner threatens any witnesses including the aforesaid 5 crucial witnesses i.e. L.Ws. 9, 31, 61, 110 and 218, it is for the CBI/2nd respondent to file application seeking cancellation of bail to them but on 15 the said ground, they cannot oppose bail application of the petitioner who is in jail from 09.09.2021.
25. It is apt to note that in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia 7, the Hon'ble Apex Court, discussed with regard to the power of granting bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and held that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is of a wide amplitude. Though the grant of bail involves the exercise of discretionary power of the Court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In the said case, the guiding factors for exercise of power to grant bail as held in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh 8, were referred, which are as follows:
"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order - but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case...The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.
4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:7
. (2020) 2 SCC 118 8 . (2002) 3 SCC 598 16
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be (2002) 3 SCC 598 considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the Accused is entitled to an order of bail."
26. It was further held in the said judgment that the determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the Accused are important. No straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the Accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had 17 committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the Accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.
27. The Apex Court referred to the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v Ashis Chatterjee 9, and the said factors are as follows:
"(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the Accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
...
12. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal..."
28. The Apex Court has also referred to the principles laid down by it in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan 10, wherein it was held 9 . (2010) 14 SCC 496 18 that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the Accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind.
29. By referring to the above said judgments, the Apex Court held that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of the Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interest of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not 10 . (2004) 7 SCC 528 19 afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.
30. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddikota Subba Rao 11 Apex Court held that once application for bail was dismissed, there is no question of granting a similar relief which will virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in a fact situation. Change means a substantial change which has direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence.
31. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) 12, The Apex Court held that while granting bail the Court must focus upon role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance.
11
1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 605 12 (2021) 6 SCC 230 20
32. The Apex Court also considered the application filed for bail in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra 13 wherein the accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Apex Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 14 Shri Gurbaksh Singh Subbia vs. State of Punjab 15, Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 16, Union of India vs. K.A.Najeeb 17, and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 18, and observed as follows:-
"If the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."
33. It is also relevant to note that in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), it is observed as follows:-
13
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 14 (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1977INSC 232 15 (1980) 2 SCC 565: 1980 INSC 68 16 (1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1979 INSC 34 17 (2021) 3 SCC 713: 2021 INSC 50 18 (2022) 10SCC 51: 2022 INSC 690 21
10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial Courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240.
We quote:
"What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [(R.v Rose-1898 18 Cox]:
"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."
53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in ach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight breach. forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial Courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that 'bail is rule and jail is exception."
34. The Apex Court also considered the principle laid down by it in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in 22 judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.
35. In the light of the same, coming to the facts of the present case, petitioner herein is A.3. He was arrested on 09.09.2021. On completion of investigation, CBI laid charge sheet on 26.10.2021, 1st supplementary charge sheet on 31.01.2022 and 2nd supplementary charge sheet on 30.06.2023. The same were taken on file as S.C.No.1 of 2023 and the same is at the stage of compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C, proceedings. Both CBI, 2nd respondent alleges that the accused are dragging on the proceedings at the stage of Section 207 Cr.P.C. intentionally. Whereas, petitioner/A.3 is contending that he never filed any application before the trial Court seeking compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. proceedings. He has cooperated with the Investigating Officer while conducting investigation.
36. It is also apt to note that the wife of the deceased filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.3944 of 2019 seeking entrustment of investigation to CBI. The said writ petition was allowed on 11.03.2020 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred the proceedings to CBI Court, Hyderabad from CBI court, Kadapa. 23
37. Admittedly, the proceedings in S.C.No.1 of 2023 are at the stage of compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, proceedings. A.6 filed an application seeking compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The said application is pending. As discussed supra, CBI and the petitioner are blaming each other for the said delay in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
38. Admittedly, in the present case, there are 294 witnesses. There is no likelihood of commencement of trial in near future. Petitioner is in jail from 09.09.2021. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would contend that there are 5 crucial witnesses i.e. L.W.9, 31,61, 110 and 218. Till their evidence is recorded, bail may not be granted to the petitioner herein, otherwise, there is every possibility of petitioner threatening the said witnesses and interfering with the trial. But as discussed supra, S.C.No.1 of 2023 is at the stage of compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., There are 294 witnesses to be examined. Therefore, recording the evidence of L.W.218 will certainly take considerable time.
39. As discussed supra, according to CBI, petitioner committed offence at the instance of A.7 and A.8 who are on regular and anticipatory bail respectively. 2nd respondent has already filed Special 24 Leave Petitions seeking cancellation of the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same are pending. A.2, A.5 and A.6 are on regular bail. It is brought to the notice of this Court that 2nd respondent filed Special Leave Petitions for cancellation of said bails and the same are pending. The only apprehension of the CBI is that petitioner/A.3 may threaten the witnesses and interfere with trial. If the petitioner threatens any witnesses including l.W.9, 31, 61, 110 and 218, the CBI or 2nd respondent can file an application seeking cancellation of bail. On the said ground, denying the bail to the petitioner who is in incarceration from 09.09.2021 is not proper.
40. Apex Court In Jalaluddin Khan vs Union of India 19 the Apex Court held:-
"When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution"19
2024 INSC 604 25
41. In Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb 20 the Apex Could while considering the duration for completion of the trial held:-
"12. Even in the case of special legislations like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the NDPS Act") which too have somewhat rigorous conditions for grant of bail, this Court in Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT ofDelhi) [Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1156], Babba v. State of Maharashtra [Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 118] and Umarmia v. State of Gujarat [Umarmia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 114] enlarged the accused on bail when they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early completion of trial. The constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in such special enactments, has thus been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of innocent civilians.
42. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav 21, the Apex Court explained parameters to be taken into consideration for grant of bail by the courts which are as follows:-
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well-settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the 20 (2021) (3) SCC 713 21 ( 2004) 7 SCC 528 26 merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-
application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge."
43. In Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 22, the Apex Court observed that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. Apex Court also reiterated the well established principle that "bail is the rule and refusal is an exception" and also the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is superior to the statutory restrictions. Apex Court also reiterated the same in Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement 23.
44. In Aminuddin (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the trial Court dismissed the bail application of the 22 (2024) SCC Online SC 1920 23 2024 INSC 632 27 accused therein by mentioning the reasons. Whereas, the High Court did not assign any reasons while granting bail and it only referred about the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Apex Court held that the High Court has to assign specific reasons while granting or rejecting bail to the accused and in the said case, the High Court did not assign any reasons. Therefore, the Apex Court cancelled the bail granted by the High court to an accused. But the facts of the present case are slightly different. As discussed supra, the petitioner is in jail since 09.09.2021, S.C.No.1 of 2023 is at the stage of compliance of Section 207 of CrPC and 294 witnesses are to be examined and voluminous documents to be marked.
45. According to the prosecution, L.W.61, A.4, spoke about role played by the petitioner in commission of the offences and the petitioner was seen in CCTV footage.
46. As discussed supra, at the costs of repetition, L.W.1 did not refer the name of the petitioner and he described 4th person as tall and thin. Prima facie, there are contradictions in his statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC. Even in the TIP, he stated that he saw the petitioner/A.3 in the house of the deceased and in the premises of the 28 CBI. However, the said TIP is subject to proof during trial. Therefore, the facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case.
47. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, relied on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, Brijmani Devi, Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala, Masroor and Ram Govind Upadhyay (supra) but the facts of the said case are slightly different to the facts of the present case.
48. In the present case, the petitioner herein is in incarceration for long period since 09.09.2021. Referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripati 24, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent would contend that long incarceration is not a ground to grant bail to the accused where the allegations are serious.
49. As discussed supra, prima facie, there are contradictions in the statement of L.W.1, A.4 and CCTV footage which are subject to proof during trial. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he has criminal background and that he did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer during investigation.
24
2005 (8) SCC 21 29
50. The petitioner is a milk vendor. He is in jail from 09.09.2021. The said aspects were not considered by the trial Court while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner/A.3.
51. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A.3 on imposition of certain condition.
52. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed granting bail to the petitioner herein/A.3 on the following conditions:-
i. The petitioner herein/A.3 is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand 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 the SHO, Pulivendula Police Station, Kadapa District, weekly once i.e. on every Saturday 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, directly or indirectly, or in any manner.30
iv. If the petitioner is holding passport, he shall surrender his original passport before the trial Court and shall not leave the country without permission of the trial Court.
v. Liberty is granted to the CBI and 2nd respondent to seek cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner/A.3 in the event of petitioner/A.3 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.
vi. The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial Court in concluding the trial in S.C.No.1 of 2023.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. vii.
________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date:18.11.2024.
Vvr.