Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

D.Siva Shankar Reddy vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 August, 2022

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

    CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1904, 2719 and 2523 of 2022

COMMON ORDER: -
      All the criminal petitions arise out of same crime number,

against same respondents and the issue involved in all the three

criminal petitions are also the same, but petitioners/accused are

different. Hence all the three criminal petitions are being disposed of

with a common order taking the Criminal Petition no.1904 of 2020

as a leading case.

Crl.P.No.1904 of 2022:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 437 and 439

Cr.P.C. seeking to release the petitioner/accused no.5 on bail

pending enquiry and trial in connection with PRC No.2/2022 on the

file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula,

Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

Crl.P.No.2719 of 2022:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 437 and 439

Cr.P.C. seeking to release the petitioner/accused no.2 on bail in

crime No.RC-4(S)/2020/CBI/SC.III/ND on the file of Central Bureau

of Investigation, CBI, New Delhi-110003.

Crl.P.No.2523 of 2022:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 437 and 439

Cr.P.C. seeking to release the petitioner/accused no.3 on bail in

Crime No. RC-4(S)/2020/CBI/SC.III/ND on the file of Central

Bureau of Investigation, CBI, New Delhi-110003.

2. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for

Sri Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Posani

Venkateswarlu, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri Ramakrishna

Akurathi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri

A.Chennakesavulu, Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent-CBI.

3. The petitioner herein is alleged to be accused No.5/A5 in Crime

No.84 of 2019 of Pulivendula Urban Police station under Section 174

of Criminal Procedure Code [for short Cr.P.C]. This being the 3rd bail

application, filed by the petitioner/accused no.5.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.03.2019 at about

8.00a.m. one Mr. M.V. Krishna Reddy, Personal Assistant of

Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy [herein after referred as the deceased] gave a

report to the Police, Pulivendula stating that the deceased found in the

bathroom lying in pool of blood with certain injuries. On the said

complaint, Pulivendula Urban Police registered the same as a case in

Crime No.84 of 2019 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. On that inquest was

conducted over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the

deceased was murdered by unknown persons. For investigating the

same, Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted on 15.03.2019,

headed by Additional DGP. During the course of investigation, basing

on the statements of several witnesses, SIT arrested one Thummala

Gangi Reddy @ Erra Gangi Reddy (A1) on 05.04.2019. Later

confessional statements of the accused were recorded, they were

remanded to judicial custody and released on bail consequently.

5. While that being so, Mrs.Y.Sowbhagyamma, wife of the deceased

filed W.P.No.3944 of 2019 before this Court to entrust investigation to

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and another Writ Petition No.1639

of 2020 was filed by Dr.D.Sunitha Reddy, daughter of the deceased and

her husband-Mr.N.Rajasekhar Reddy. This court by a common order

dated 11.03.2020 allowed both the writ petitions and directed the CBI

to conduct further investigation. During the course of investigation,

CBI arrested one Sunil Yadav (A2) on 02.08.2021 at Goa and was

remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2021 by Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Pulivendula and also arrested one Gajjala Uma Sankar

Reddy (A3) and remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.2021. On

25.08.2021 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and on 31.08.2021 164 (1)

Cr.P.C. statement of Shaik Dasthagiri (A4) were recorded and he was

granted pre-arrest bail by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa on

22.01.2021.

6. In the said statements, A4 revealed the role of each accused

including himself. According to the statements, it is alleged that A1

informed to A4 that influential people are behind and they will give forty

crores of rupees, out of which, A4 will be given five cores. It is also

stated that one Sunil Yadav (A2) paid an amount of rupees one crore to

A4 and further confessed that he purchased an axe, which was used in

the commission of the offence. He further confessed that he caused an

injury on the right palm of the deceased with the said axe. According to

his statements, A1 informed A4 that he spoke to the petitioner and

others and they have assured to take care of the issue.

7. Basing on the statement made by A4 under section 164 (1)

Cr.P.C., the petitioner was included as accused No.5 (A5), he was

arrested on 17.11.2021 and remanded to judicial custody on

18.11.2021. After completion of investigation, CBI filed 2nd charge

sheet against A5 on 31.01.2022.

8. The respondent-CBI filed its counter stating that CBI registered

the Case FIR No.RC-04(S)/2020/SC-III/ND Dt.09.07.2020 for

commission of offences punishable U/s 302 of Indian Penal Code

arising out of re-registration of Crime No.84 of 2019 of Police Station-

Pulivendula, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh relating to the murder of

Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, in accordance with the order dated

11.03.2020 passed by this in Writ Petition No.3944 of 2019, 1639 of

2020. That subsequently after conducting initial investigation, CBI has

filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Pulivendula on 26.10.2021 against T.Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy

(A-1) and three other accused persons namely Yadati Sunil Yadav (A-2),

Sh. Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy (A-3) and Shaik Dasthagiri (A-4) for

commission of offences U/s 302, 120-B IPC. That one of the accused

Shaik Dasthagiri (A-4) has been tendered pardon by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kadapa under Section 306 Cr.P.C vide order dated

26.11.2021. The same was challenged by accused T. Gangi Reddy (A-1)

and Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy (A-3) before this Court. This Court

vide order dated 16.02.2022 dismissed their petition by upholding the

order dated 26.11.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa. It is

humbly submitted that while ordering investigation by CBI, Hon'ble

High Court in the order dated 11.03.2020 observed that the dead body

of the deceased was deliberately shifted from bathroom to bedroom and

the blood in these two rooms was cleaned to destroy the valuable

evidence and scene of crime and revealed apathy on the part of police

though present there. The body was deliberately shifted to Government

Area Hospital, Pulivendula, where only Inquest was held belatedly,

instead of at the scene of offence. That, had the crime scene been

preserved and inquest was held at the spot and clues team was pressed

into service, valuable clues could have been obtained.

9. It is also observed by the Hon'ble Court that the complaint of

M.V.Krishna Reddy clearly shows that the deceased was murdered

wherein he mentioned that approximately two liters of blood was pooled

on floor of bedroom and so also blood was splashed on the floor of

bathroom and there were injuries on the forehead, back of the head and

on the palm of the deceased. However, the police registered the FIR

under Section 174 Cr. P.C. as a suspicious death and only after

completion of inquest, they altered section of law to 302 IPC and the

murder of a high profile person was not given due importance by police.

It is also observed by the Hon'ble High Court that even after 11 months

after murder, the police have not traced the real culprits except

arresting three accused persons namely T. Gangireddy @ Yerra Gangi

Reddy, M.V. Krishna Reddy and Yeddula Prakash for the offence under

section 201 of IPC for causing disappearance of the evidence of the

murder. That there is a total fiasco on the part of the SIT although the

SIT claimed that the investigation was concentrated in all angles i.e.

financial, personal and political activities of the deceased to establish

the motive and so far, it examined more than 100 witness and verified

the antecedent's of all suspects. It is submitted that the supplementary

charge-sheet was filed on 03.02.2022 against the accused petitioner D.

Siva Shankar Reddy (A5), U/s 201 & 120-B r/w 302 & 201 IPC and

Yerra Gangi Reddy (A1) u/Sec.201, 506 & 120-B r/w 201 IPC in

continuation to the charge sheet filed by CBI on 26.10.2021 against

Yerra Gangi Reddy (A1),Yadati Sunil Yadav (A2), Gajjala Uma Sankar

Reddy (A3) and Shaik Dasthagiri (A4). That accused petitioner D. Siva

Shankar Reddy, along with other charge sheeted accused namely Yadati

Sunil Yadav and Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy are presently in judicial

custody at Central Prison Kadapa whereas accused Yerra Gangi Reddy

is enlarged on default bail and Shaik Dasthagiri has already been

granted anticipatory bail.

10. The further investigation is still continuing on the issue of larger

conspiracy and destruction of scene of crime. That it has been revealed

during investigation that accused D Siva Shankar Reddy on 15.03.2019

visited the house of YS Vivekananda Reddy at around 06:30 am. He was

part of conspiracy for propagation of heart attack theory relating to

death of YS Vivekanand Reddy. It is revealed that he had informed

Sakshi TV that YS Vivekananda Reddy died due to heart attack and also

contacted CI of Pulivendula to reach the house of YS Vivekananda

Reddy to control the mob. Thereafter, the accused petitioner actively

participated in destruction of scene of crime by way of cleaning the

bedroom, bathroom and getting wounds cleaned with the help of

compounder Sri Gajjala Jaiprakash Reddy and others. Thereafter, he

got bandaged the said wounds of deceased to hide the same in

pursuance to the conspiracy already designed. That it has been

revealed during investigation that the room was bolted from inside while

the cleaning and bandaging were being done as per directions of A5 and

his close associates.

11. During investigation that D.Siva Shankar Reddy and his close

associates convinced the visiting persons that YS Vivekananda Reddy

died due to blood vomiting and heart attack. That it is has been

revealed during investigation that D.Siva Shankar Reddy scolded CI

Shankaraiah to keep mum and also instructed that they have to

manage it as heart attack and blood vomiting. Further he also

obstructed carrying out the photography/ videography of the actual

scene of crime while he was trying to destroy the evidence present at the

scene of crime. It has been revealed during investigation that the

conspiracy for murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy was hatched at the

behest of accused D Siva Shankar Reddy and his close associates, one

month prior to the murder by way of offering huge amount of money to

the charge sheeted accused persons. That it has been revealed during

investigation that D.Siva Shankar Reddy also called Shaik Dasthagiri in

the month of March 2021 in the house of Bayupu Reddy (close friend) at

Pulivendula for briefing not to disclose his name and others before CBI.

It is also revealed during investigation that accused D.Siva Shankar

Reddy is found influencing/inducing the vital witnesses. That during

investigation D.Siva Shankar Reddy was found involved in the

conspiracy of murder and destruction of evidence at the scene of crime.

Therefore he was arrested on 17.11.2021 at 4 p.m. at Hyderabad by

observing all legal formalities. He was medically got examined and

found fit for further proceedings. Thereafter, he was produced before the

XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad who, after

granted one day transit remand for production of D.Siva Shankar Reddy

before 5 p.m. on 18.11.2021 before the Judicial Magistrate First class

Pulivendula.

12. That accused D.Siva Shankar Reddy was shifted to RIMS

Hospital, Kadapa from Central Prison, Kadapa without due permission

of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pulivendula, Kadapa. It was

observed adversely by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Pulivendula

who observed that, "this type of practice from the prison authorities is

highly deprecated by this Court. In this regard, the office is directed to

issue a show cause notice to the Superintendent, Central Prison,

Kadapa seeking explanation to the satisfaction of this court for violation

of Rule under Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979".

13. That the petitioner is an influential person having political

background. As per the police records, he has been involved in 31 other

criminal cases which clearly indicates the history and criminal

background of the accused. The further investigation is still continuing

on the issue of larger conspiracy and destruction of scene of crime and

granting bail to accused D.Siva Shankar Reddy may affect the

investigation as there is every likelihood that he may also try to

influence material witnesses relevant to the case. That it is suspected

that several witnesses in the case are being influenced at the behest of

petitioner D.Siva Shankar Reddy. Three witnesses namely 1.Gangadhar

Reddy r/o 7/142-1 Kunta Street, Yadiki Mandalmu Kunta Street

Yadiki, Distt. Anathapuram, Andhra Pradesh, 2. J. Shankariah r/o 3-1-

202 Chenna Reddy Colony, Pulivendula Town, Dist. Kadapa (the then

CI Pulivendula) and 3. MV Krishna Reddy r/o D.No.3-5-57/2, near

Mittamalleswara Oriental High School, Pulivendula Town, Kadapa, the

PA of the deceased and informant in the FIR, are already suspected to

have come under the influence of the petitioner and other conspirators.

That during the course of investigation Sri Gangadhar Reddy himself

approached CBI thereafter his statement u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C was

recorded on 02.10.2021 wherein he stated that after the murder of Sri

Vivekananda Reddy he was approached by the accused petitioner

D.Shankar Reddy in the month of August, 14 2019, requesting to take

responsibility for the murder (as the persons involved in the murder are

new persons and may reveal the truth), for which he would be given Rs.

10 Crores. On 25.11.2021, Shri Gangadhar Reddy gave his willingness

in writing also before the Investigating Officer of CBI to record his

statement before Magistrate. Accordingly, on an application filed by

CBI, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kadapa vide order dated

27.11.2021 nominated the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Jammalamadugu to record statement of Sri Gangadhar Reddy

u/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. However, on 29.11.2021 it came to notice that said

Sri Gangadhar Reddy gave a statement before media that he is being

pressurized by CBI to give statement. Thereafter, Sri Gangadhar Reddy

also gave a representation to this effect to the Superintendent of Police,

Ananthapuram who marked this complaint to Sri V.N.K.Chaitanya,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tadipatri Taluk, Ananthapuram

District.

14. One Sri Jagdeeshwar Reddy who is witness in this case and

whose statement has been recorded by the CBI in the instant case,

submitted a complaint dated 04.12.2021 to the Investigating Officer of

CBI that he is being called/harassed by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police Sri V.N.K.Chaitanya on the pretext of conducting enquiries on the

aforementioned representation of Sri Gangadhar Reddy. That during

investigation CBI has examined Sri J. Shankaraiah (CI Pulivendula at

the time of the incident, suspended for dereliction of duty in connection

with the incident), and recorded his statement u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. On

28.09.2021 he gave his willingness in writing to record his statement

before a Magistrate. Accordingly, on an application filed by CBI, the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa vide order dated 30.09.2021

nominated the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu to

record statement of Sri J.Shankaraiah u/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. However, he

did not come forward to record his statement and denied to appear

before the Magistrate. He took the plea of being busy in his service

matter with police authorities in Kurnool. After one week of this refusal

of Sri J.Shankariah, his suspension was revoked on 06.10.2021 and he

has been reinstated in service.

15. On the other hand 2nd respondent who is the daughter of the

deceased filed counter and submitted that in the 2nd/supplementary

charge sheet dated 31.01.2022, the investigation agency has clearly

shown the new line of investigation and has clearly given the role of all

the accused in regard to destruction of scene of crime and bigger

conspiracy of murder and their role in participating with the other

persons who are involved in the crime apart from the present accused

and the entire charge sheet reveals about the involvement of the

petitioners who have filed the bail applications. A5 who has so much

influence in the local public at Pulivendula and Kadapa and by virtue

of his influence, though he is in jail, through his followers he can

influence any person and there are followers who had put up several

flexi boards at Pulivendula Town from 19.12.2021 to 26.12.2021

showing his might and support to the ruling party. Investigation

further revealed that A5 has been threatening the witnesses and the

investigation agency has to investigate further witnesses and arrest the

real culprits in the crime. The contentions of the accused that A4 has

been pardoned u/Sec.306 Cr.P.C and by virtue of that who has been

involved in the crime has been granted anticipatory bail and the

accused are also entitled in the same fashion is absolutely

unsustainable. In fact, the proviso under Section 306 Cr.P.C. is an

independent provision given power to the Court to tender a pardon, if

the said accused discloses the clear facts of the crime scene making

the investigating agency to investigate for finding the real culprits and

more so over if the said statement does not comply with the conditions

of the pardon an action can be initiated against the said person, the

same principle cannot be applied to the accused and this Hon'ble

Court has clearly dealt with the said issue.

16. Further submitted that the investigating agency has been trying

to get the main culprits in the larger conspiracy of the crime and by

virtue of their influence of all the accused, they have been trying to

divert the case by influencing and threatening the witnesses and

prayed to dismiss the bail applications.

17. The main allegation against the petitioner herein is the

conspiracy for murder of the deceased at the behest of the petitioner

and his close associates one month prior to the commission of the

offence by offering huge amounts to other accused. It is also alleged

that the petitioner visited the house of the deceased on 15.03.2019 at

about 6.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence. He is said to have made the

propaganda that the deceased died due to heart attack. The petitioner

contacted Circle Inspector of Police Pulivendula and requested him to

control the mob and actively participated in cleaning the bed room,

bath room and putting bandages on the injuries of the deceased,

thereby actively participated in destruction of the scene of crime along

with A1. Further alleged that the petitioner called Shaik Dasthagiri

(A4) to the house of his friend Bayapu Reddy and instructed him not to

disclose his name and others before the CBI.

18. Basing on the above said factual aspects Sri T.Niranjan Reddy,

learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.Dilip Jayaram,

learned counsel for A5 has submitted his arguments that in view of

the charge sheet filed by the respondents, the Court has taken

cognizance has given P.R.C.No.02 of 2022 on 10.02.2022 under

sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 and 120-B r/w 201 IPC against A1

and 302, 120-B IPC against A2 to A4 and against petitioner only

under section 201 and 120-B r/w 302 and 201 IPC has taken.

Considering the charge sheet, cognizance has taken by the Court

below and the matter is committed. In the said circumstances, there

is no necessity for the petitioners to be put behind the bars.

19. The second contention raised by the senior counsel is that

though it is a second bail application but the earlier bail applications

were rejected by this court vide Crl.P.No.7550 of 2020 dated

17.01.2022. The investigation is at crucial stage hence this Court is

not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly

dismissed. But at present the investigation is completed and charge

sheet has been filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, Kadapa District on

03.02.2022 itself. In the said circumstances even in the

observations made by this Court in earlier occasion while rejecting

the bail application it is not existing as of now. In view of the

changed circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for bail. On factual

aspects, the learned senior counsel has submitted his argument that

even according to the charge sheet filed by the respondents, the

allegations made against the petitioner at para no.16-7 and 8 clearly

discloses that it is only pre-occurrence of the incident. Hence the

participation of the petitioner only in post-occurrence which attracts

Section 201. According to Section 201 the maximum punishment is

only seven years. Hence it is clear that there are no allegations

specific overt acts against the petitioner with regard to pre-

occurrence. At any costs if the petitioner involvement is to be

considered under Section 201 r/w 120-B is entitled for enlarge on

bail.

20. Learned senior counsel further argued that the very basis for

including the petitioner as accused no.5 is basing on the statement

made by A4. Even according to A4's statement under Section 306

Cr.P.C., according to the said statement it is very clear that there is

no direct contact of A4 with the petitioner. Except a bold statement

stating that A2 has taken A4 to A1's house where he has made a call

to the petitioner, except that there are no contacts of A4 with

petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the

allegations made against the petitioner by A4 under Section 306

Cr.P.C is only with regard to post incident. Hence there are no

specific allegations or overt acts against the petitioner with regard to

the pre-incidents. Hence section 120-B IPC with regard to pre-

incident under Section 302 IPC would not attract to the petitioner.

To support his contention learned counsel has taken this Court to

various paragraphs in the statement made by A4 under Section 306

Cr.P.C.

21. Learned senior counsel further argued that in the instant case,

even according to the statement made by A4 and the eye witness

Rangayya, clearly discloses that A1 to A4 are participated in the

incident and A1 was already granted bail by the Court below and A4

has also granted bail with the help of the investigating agency.

Hence all in parity suffered when the accused those who have

participated in the crime were already granted bail. But without

considering the same, the Court below has rejected bail of the

petitioner is baseless and not reasonable order.

22. Learned senior counsel further emphasised his argument that

the Court below i.e. IV Additional District Court, Kadapa while

rejecting the bail application filed by the petitioner in

Crl.M.P.No.93/2022 in Cr.No.84/2019 of Pulivendula police station

on 02.3.2022 has not considered properly and rejected the bail on

extraneous reasons. Though in the said bail application, the

petitioner has pleaded specifically on health grounds. But without

properly appreciating the same, the Court below has dismissed.

23. Learned counsel Sri Chidambaram, appearing on behalf of 2nd

accused while adopting the arguments of the other senior counsel,

has contended that though there are specific allegations/averments

made against A5, but the 2nd accused in the instant case is a small

man and there are no specific allegations that he will tamper with

the evidence. The factum of filing of charge sheet when there are no

specific allegations that he will interfere with the investigation or

tamper with the evidences, he requested for grant of bail by imposing

any conditions.

24. Learned Counsel Sri T.L.Nagin Kumar, appearing on behalf of

the third accused would submit that in the entire charge sheet and

also in the supplementary charge sheet filed by the CBI there are no

allegations against this accused and only at the instance of A4 only

the name of this accused was included in the FIR as well as in the

charge sheet. Therefore, bail may be granted to this accused.

25. Replying to the contentions and submissions made by the learned

senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Special Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-CBI strongly controverting the

same, submitted that the petitioner was main supporter of the crime

and prima facie there is sufficient material on record to prove his

involvement in the alleged offence. It is thus obvious that the nature of

the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is

pertinent, the court has also to consider the likelihood of the petitioner

interfering with the witnesses for the prosecution and otherwise

involvement of the process of justice. In the instant case in order to

prove the prima facie case against the petitioner, the prosecution has

mainly relied on the statement made by A4 under 164 (1) Cr.P.C.

26. During the course of investigation, it came to the light that the

accused (A5)/the petitioner herein on the date of offence i.e. on

15.03.2019 visited the house of the deceased at about 6.30a.m., on

receipt of the information of the death. There are facts and

circumstances that he participated in the conspiracy by propagating

that said YS Vivekananda Reddy/deceased died in view of heart attack

and contacted with Circle Inspector of Pulivendula to reach the house of

deceased to control the mob, the theory of heart attack was allegedly

propagated and there are evidences that the petitioner/accused actively

participated in the destruction of scene of offence, by way of cleaning

bath room, bed room and getting the wounds cleaned with the help of

compounder Shri Gajjala Jaiprakash Reddy and others. Thereafter he

got bandaged on the said wounds of the deceased to hide the same in

pursuance of the conspiracy. During the course of investigation, it is

further found that the room was bolted inside while cleaning and

bandaging were going on as per the directions of the petitioner. There is

also evidence that one month prior to the incident, the petitioner

conspired with the other accused by offering huge remuneration.

Further investigation discloses that the accused has scolded the Circle

Inspector- Shankaraiah to keep mum and also instructed that they

have to manage as if it was a heart attack and blood vomiting. In view

of the above, it clearly found that the petitioner was involved in the

conspiracy of murder and destruction of the evidence at the scene of

crime.

27. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that the

petitioner/accused is found involved in influencing the vital witnesses

and inducing them during investigation and his involvement was found

in the larger conspiracy of murder and destruction of scene of crime.

He further submitted that CBI has already filed an application under

section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to T.Gangi

Reddy (A1) on the ground that he was found influencing and

threatening the vital witnesses during the investigation and the same

was dismissed by the court below on the ground that the bail is granted

under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Further submitted that investigation is

still continuing and they have filed charge sheet against some of the

accused and in view of the same, if bail is granted in favour of the

petitioner, he may influence the other witnesses.

28. As contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Central Bureau of Investigation that as per the counter filed by the

respondents, it clearly discloses the interference of the petitioner in

influencing the witnesses. In fact, initially one K.Srinivasareddy is

brother in law of Parameswar Reddy, had voluntarily came and given

a statement and subsequently he has committed suicide on

02.9.2019 in a very intriguing circumstances. According to the post-

mortem examination report, it clearly reveals that he allegedly

consumed organophosphate, an insecticide poison and died in his

lands at Kusunuru. But the post-mortem revealed that some

quantity of blood was found in the hepatorenal pouch indicating that

the collection of blood in the pouch may not be on account of poison

but on account of external or internal injuries. But the death was

registered as Cr.No.188/2019 of Simhadripuram police station under

Section 174 Cr.P.C. At any rate, said death of K.Srinivasa Reddy is a

mysterious one. In fact while considering the issue to transfer the

investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation, High Court has not

convinced the investigation made by the Special Investigation Team

and observed that the investigation agency i.e. Special Investigation

Team has not achieved a major breakthrough. Hence further

investigation of the case was handed over to Central Bureau of

Investigation. Learned Counsel further brought to the notice of the

Court that the petitioner is a highly influential person and he is

having political functionary and is an active in political party which

is in power. He has also argued that there is a clear motive to

eliminate Sri Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy for his political gain in the

District. According to the statement made by A4, it clearly reveals

the involvement of the petitioner from the day one of planning to

murder to till screening of evidences. Even prior to the incident,

there is clear evidence that the petitioner has involved in the

conspiracy with A1, A2 and A4.

29. Learned senior counsel Sri Posani Venkateswarlu appearing on

behalf of the defacto complainant has submitted that there is no

distinction between the pre and post incident and he specifically

contended that while taking the charge sheet into consideration, the

Court below has committed the petitioner not only under Section 201

Cr.P.C it is under section 201 and 120-B r/w 302 IPC. Hence as

contended by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner has

committed only under section 201 and 120-B is not correct. Basing

on the participation in the post incident, the involvement of the

petitioner in the pre-incident can be inferred with the contact of the

petitioner to the incident. Learned senior counsel has further

submitted that according to the statement made by A4, it is very

clear that even prior to the incident they were in touch with

petitioner and A2 has clearly at the place of A1 with A2 by A4. They

called the petitioner over phone and they have disclosed that

whatever A1 says behind he should follow. It is also an admitted fact

that the payment of huge amounts to A4 and the said amounts were

also recovered from A4 and according to the statements it is clear

that the said amounts were not arranged by the petitioner herein.

Further learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner is an

influential person in the District and he is general secretary to the

political party which is in power. For that reason only though the

petitioner was released on temporary bail, while releasing from the

jail in the entire town has seized and erected flexis to show his

power. These type of incidents he could able to manage the

witnesses very easily. Learned senior counsel further brought to the

notice of this court that there are several cases pending against the

petitioner and the list of cases which are filed and pending against

the petitioners are placed in the material papers that shows almost

more than thirty cases were filed and some of them are pending. In

view of the said circumstances and considering the heinous crime,

the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. If he is enlarged

on bail, he would have easily hamper the investigation as well as

witnesses. Hence requested to dismiss the bail application. To

support his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments.

1. Virupakshappa Gouda and another vs. State of

Karnataka and another1 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that

On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons. As is further demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has remained absolutely oblivious of the fact that the appellants had moved the special leave petition before this Court for grant of bail and the same was not entertained. Be it noted, the second bail application was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge after filing of the charge- sheet which was challenged in the High Court and that had travelled to this Court. These facts, unfortunately, have not been taken note of by the learned trial Judge. He has been swayed by the observations made in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), especially in paragraph 86, the relevant part of which reads thus:-

1. "The courts considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-a-vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court."

2. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. and another[3]. The requisite factors are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another[4], it has been opined that while exercising the power for grant of bail, the court has to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors. We may usefully reproduce the said passage:-

3. "9....among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

4. (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the accused had committed the offence.

5. (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

6. (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

7. (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

8. (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

9. (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

10. (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

11. (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

12. 17. In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy[5], the Court had reiterated the principle by observing thus:- "While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing

(2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406

the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."

13. 18. From the aforesaid principles, it is quite clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. In this context, we may, with profit, reproduce a passage from Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another[6], wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail observed:-

14. "The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law."

2. State of Maharashtra vs. Captain Buddhikota

Subharao2 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence.

1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 605

3. Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India and others3 wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

A conspiracy thus, is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So long aits performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. It does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design. Its continuance is a threat to the society against which it was aimed at and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to do so. The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalised or done, attempted or even frustrated and vice versa

4. Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and

Another4 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:

In the said case it has been highlighted that in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.

5. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee5 wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

We are constrained to observe that in the instant case, while dealing with the application of the accused for grant of bail, the High Court completely lost sight of the basic principles enumerated above. The accused, in the present case, is alleged to have committed a heinous crime of killing an old helpless lady by strangulation. He was seen coming out of the victim's house by a neighbour around the time of the alleged occurrence, giving rise to a reasonable belief that he had committed the murder. We feel that under the given circumstances, it was not the stage at which bail under Section 439 of the Code should have been granted to the accused, more so, when even charges have not yet been framed. It is also pertinent to note that, as stated above, the

(1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 609

2012 AIR SCW 5567

LAWS(SC) 2010 10 111

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected three bail applications of the accused but the High Court did not find it worthwhile to even make a reference to these orders. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the following observations echoed in (2001) 4 SCC 224 (2005) 3 SCC 143 (2002) 9 SCC 364 (2005) 7 SCC 326 Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr.9:-

"In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted." (See also: Ram Pratap Yadav Vs. Mitra Sen Yadav & Anr.10)

14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The bail bond and the surety furnished by the accused in terms of the impugned order stands cancelled and it is directed that he will be taken into custody forthwith. Needless to add that observations touching the merits of the case against the accused are purely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of bail and if in future any such application is filed by the accused, it shall be considered on its own merits untrammelled by any of these observations.

30. Replying to the arguments of the senior counsel appearing for

the petitioners that the investigation in relation to crime is completed

and the charge sheet has been submitted, therefore no question of

influencing the witnesses or tampering the evidence would not arise.

Hence grant of bail would not arise in view of the observations made

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Virupakshappa Gouda and another

vs. State of Karnataka and another (cited supra) wherein the

Court has clearly stated that just because of filing charge sheet is not

a ground of change of circumstances. In fact learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant has submitted that

filing of charge sheet is not a changed circumstance.

31. Further as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

judgment reported in between Virupakshappa Gouda and another

vs. State of Karnataka and another in which the Hon'ble Apex

Court has observed that filing of charge sheet does not in any

manner of change of circumstances and also observed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court with regard to Section 120-B IPC in judgment reported in

between Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India and others (cited

supra) wherein it is observed that conspiracy is a continuing offence

and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the

conspirators does an act or series of acts. Till it is executed it is a

continuous offence. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the

petitioner with regard to post incident cannot be considered. Though

grant of bail is a discretionary order but it has to be passed on well

settled principles laid down by the Apex Court in between Manoj

Kumar Khokkar vs. State of Rajasthan6 wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that:

(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."

As per the above noted principles while granting bail though it

has to be considered the period of custody but it should be weighed

with the totality of the circumstances and that the criminal

antecedents of the accused. Though liberty of the individual is an

invaluable right, but at the same time while considering the

application for bail, Courts cannot lose sight of serious nature of the

accusations against an accused and facts that having baring in the

case and supported by adequate material brought on record and

prima-facie conclusions supported by reasons.

2022 (3) SCC 501

32. Considering the seriousness of the crime, the bail applications

were rejected by the Court below as well as this court in the first