The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari of the apex court in the case of Gali Janardhan Reddy vs the state of Andhra Pradesh held that any attempt on the part of the accused to delay the trial of serious offenses is to be dealt with iron hands. More the delay, more the possibilities of influencing the witnesses.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant herein is the accused who is convicted for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409,468, 411, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Rule 21 read with Rules 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The applicant approached both the learned trial court and the high court for the grant of regular bail however, the request of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the accused may impede fair and uninfluenced investigation. Thereafter, the accused approached this court and regular bail was granted by the apex court by imposing certain conditions. The present application is preferred by the appellant to modify or delete condition no. C and thereby permit him to enter, stay and function in the Districts of Ballery in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.
The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has contended that the bail was granted 6 to 7 years back and the applicant has not violated any of the conditions as imposed. The accused cannot be held responsible for the delay in the trial proceedings. Further, the request was made to modify condition no. C.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the if the court modifies condition no. C then, the accused may influence the witnesses which may ultimately affect the trial and the judicial process. it was further submitted that despite the orders passed by this court, the trial is not proceeding due to the conduct of the accused persons by filing discharge applications one after another.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court observed that there is a serious apprehension on the part of the CBI / investigating agency that if condition No.(c) is relaxed and/or modified and/or substituted, there would be threat to the witnesses because of the power and influence that the applicant is having. It is very unfortunate that even after a period of 11 years of filing the FIR and despite the observations made by this Court directing the trial to be expedited, the trial has not begun. From the material on record, it appears that the trial has not begun on the ground that the accused / co-accused are filing the applications for discharge one after another, due to which the trial has not begun. In a case like this, it is always in the larger interest that the trial is concluded at the earliest. Early conclusion of the trial would enhance the faith of people in justice delivery system. The trial must come to its logical end at the earliest. Any attempt on the part of the accused to delay the trial of serious offences is to be dealt with iron hands. More the delay, more the possibilities of influencing the witnesses. Therefore, the court is of the opinion that as despite the observations made by this Court directing to expedite the trial, as the trial has not begun, now, a direction is to be issued to the trial Court to begin the trial on day to day basis and once the trial begins the applicant – accused may be restrained from entering into the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh looking to the strong apprehension on the part of the CBI
CASE NAME- Gali Janardhan Reddy vs the state of Andhra Pradesh
CITATION- MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 528 OF 2020
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
DATE-10.10.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
