Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vaddu Lakshmidevamma Lakshmi ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 February, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7029 OF 2021
ORDER:-
This criminal petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to cancel the bail that was
granted to the accused in Crime No.202 of 2021 of Gadivemula
Police Station, Kurnool District, by the impugned order dated
13.09.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.169 of 2021 on the file of
learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool at
Nandyal.
2. The accused are A-1, A-4, A-6 to A-9 in Crime No.202 of
2021 of Gadivemula Police Station, Kurnool District. A case
under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered against them.
3. It is a case of double murder. It is the version of the
prosecution that the respondents 3 to 8 herein along with other
accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and
attacked the two deceased persons, who are brothers and
committed murder of the said two persons.
4. The accused herein were arrested on 25.06.2021.
Thereafter they were remanded to judicial custody. Earlier two
bail applications filed by the accused were dismissed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge. The 2nd bail application was
dismissed on 25.08.2021. Thereafter, 3rd bail application was
filed by them and it was allowed on 13.09.2021 enlarging said
accused on bail on certain conditions.
5. Wife of one of the deceased has now filed this petition for
cancellation of the said bail that was granted to the accused in
the above crime on the ground that there are no change of
circumstances for grant of bail after dismissal of the earlier bail
application. It is also alleged that the accused through their men
have been threatening the witnesses and interfering with the
process of investigation. Therefore, on the aforesaid two
grounds, the bail that was granted to the said accused is now
sought to be cancelled.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the
respondents/accused.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after
the second bail application was dismissed on 25.08.2021, the 3rd
bail application was allowed immediately on 13.09.2021 without
there being any change of circumstances to entertain the said
bail application. He would submit that absolutely there are no
change of circumstances after dismissal of the earlier bail
application and as such the impugned order granting bail to the
accused is legally unsustainable. He would further submit that a
representation was submitted by the petitioner herein stating
that the accused through their men have been threatening the
witnesses and thereby interfering with the process of
investigation and the same is not being considered. Therefore, he
would contend that as the accused are interfering with the
process of investigation and making an attempt to tamper with
the prosecution evidence, that they are not entitled to bail and he
would submit that the bail that was granted to them is liable to
be cancelled. Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, he sought for
cancellation of the bail.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State submits that a condition was imposed that the accused
shall not enter the village and the accused have been complying
with the said condition. He would further submit that no
complaint was received by the police stating that the accused are
making any attempt to threaten the witnesses through their men
and that they have been interfering with the process of
investigation. He would submit on instructions that the accused
are not making any attempt to tamper with the prosecution
evidence. He would also submit that the entire investigation in
this case is completed and about 48 witnesses have been
examined and only R.F.S.L. report is awaited to file the charge
sheet. Therefore, he opposed the petition filed by the petitioner.
9. The respondents/accused have filed their counter denying
the material averments made in the petition. It is stated that the
respondents have been complying with the condition imposed
against them at the time of granting bail and they did not even
enter the village till today after they were enlarged on bail and as
such, the question of the accused threatening the witnesses or
interfering with the process of investigation does not arise.
Learned counsel for the respondents would also reiterate the said
facts while making her oral submissions opposing this petition
and would submit that there are absolutely no valid grounds
emanating from the record warranting cancellation of the bail
that was granted to the petitioners.
10. In support of her contention, she relied on the Judgment of
the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Myakala
Dharmarajam and others v. State of Telangana and
another1. Therefore, she would pray for dismissal of the
petition.
11. Perused the record.
12. The record reveals that the accused were arrested in the
said case on 25.06.2021 and thereafter remanded to judicial
custody. The earlier two bail applications filed by them were
dismissed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge. The
second bail application was dismissed on 25.08.2021. However,
while disposing of the third bail application, the learned III
Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to the accused on
13.09.2021. No doubt, as can be seen from the orders dated
25.08.2021 and 13.09.2021, there are no change of
circumstances to consider the third bail application in favour of
the accused. The learned Sessions Judge held in the order dated
25.08.2021 that about 42 witnesses were examined. Even in the
order dated 13.09.2021 also, it was held that 42 witnesses were
examined as on that date. A perusal of the aforesaid two orders
dated 25.08.2021 and 13.09.2021 reveal that there are no
change of circumstances to consider the third bail application in
favour of the accused. But the learned III Additional Sessions
Judge in the order dated 13.09.2021 held that it is brought to
2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 10 (SC)
the notice of the Court that a police personnel is deployed in the
village as there is threat to the family members of the deceased
and he further held that since the material witnesses were
examined, that there will be no chance to the accused to interfere
with the investigation.
13. Although, a perusal of the impugned order shows that it
suffers from an infirmity as pointed out by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that without there being any change of
circumstances after dismissal of the earlier bail application, that
the learned III Additional Sessions Judge considered the third
bail application in favour of the accused, having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case and the present stage of
investigation, this Court is of the considered view that fact by
itself is not sufficient to cancel the bail that was granted to the
accused. Particularly, in view of the fact that the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that
the entire investigation in this case is now completed after
examining about 48 witnesses and that only R.F.S.L. report is
awaited to file the charge sheet and also in view of the fact that
learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions has stated
that there is no material placed before them to show that the
accused are interfering with the process of investigation by way
of threatening the witnesses through their men. Further, the
petitioners, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
have been complying with the conditions imposed at the time of
granting bail and that they did not enter the village till today and
they are residing outside the village.
14. In this context, it is relevant to note that the Honourable
Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh and others Etc vs.
State of Bihar2 held that "... bail can be cancelled where (i) the
accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper
with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in
similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there
is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make
himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the
investigating agency and (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the
reach of his surety, etc....". It is stated that the above grounds are
illustrative and not exhaustive.
15. Following the aforesaid Judgment, the Honourable Apex
Court in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam and others v.
State of Telangana and another (referred supra), held that
the alleged complaint that accused were influencing witnesses is
vague and except making an omnibus allegation to that effect,
there is no material to substantiate the same and as such, the
bail that was granted earlier to the accused cannot be cancelled.
16. None of the grounds which are enumerated in the
Raghubir Singh and others Etc vs. State of Bihar (referred
supra) case is found to be existing in the present case. Although
it is alleged that the accused are making an attempt to threaten
the witnesses through their men, it appears to be a vague
allegation without any valid basis.
(1986) 4 SCC 481
17. It is significant to note here that learned Additional Public
Prosecutor on instructions would submit that nothing was
brought to the notice of the police or the investigating agency
stating that the accused are interfering with course of
investigation by way of threatening the witnesses through their
men. Therefore, in the absence of any valid material to
substantiate the said allegation, the bail that was granted to the
accused earlier cannot be cancelled on the basis of the said
vague allegation. Therefore, this Court finds no valid reasons
emanating from the record to cancel the bail that was earlier
granted to the accused.
18. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, the accused, who are on bail, shall not enter the
Pesaravayi village, where police are deploying, till the charge
sheet is filed in this case.
_____________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 24-02-2022
ARR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7029 OF 2021
Date : 24-02-2022
ARR
