The State Through Cbi vs T.Gangi Reddy Yerra Gangi Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 1338 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

               Criminal Petition No.788 of 2021


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is

filed to cancel the bail that was granted to A-1 in C.B.I. Case

No.RC-04(S)/2020/SC-III/New Delhi, arising out of Crime

No.84 of 2019 of U/G Police Station, Pulivendula, YSR

Kadapa District.

2) Facts germane to dispose of the Criminal Petition may

briefly be stated as follows:

(a) The deceased Sri Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy was former

M.L.A. of Pulivendula Constituency in Andhra Pradesh State;

former Member of Lok Sabha; former Member of A.P.

Legislative Council; former Minister for Agriculture and he

was also the Member of Parliamentary Committee on Science

and Technology, Environment and Forests, constituted by the

Government of India. He was found dead in his house at

Bhakarapuram of Pulivendula Town in Kadapa District in the

morning hours of 15.03.2019. His deadbody was found in

a pool of blood in his house.

(b) Initially a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was

registered by the local police i.e. U/G Police Station,

Pulivendula in Crime No.84 of 2019. Subsequently, a case

under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC was

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

registered. Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) was

constituted and the said SIT has taken up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, police arrested the

respondent, who is A-1, in the said Crime on 28.03.2019 and

he was remanded to judicial custody. As the investigation

could not be completed within the stipulated period of time of

90 days, default bail was granted to A-1 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, on

27.06.2019 under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.

No.2028 of 2019. He was released on bail as per the said

order.

(c) Subsequently, as per order dated 11.03.2020,

passed by this Court in W.P.No.3144 of 2019 and

W.P.No.1639 of 2020, investigation in the above crime was

entrusted to the CBI. Therefore, the CBI has taken up the

investigation in the said case. The investigation revealed that

a conspiracy was hatched up by A-1 to A-4 along with some

other persons to kill the deceased and there are some

influenced persons behind the said conspiracy.

The investigation further disclosed that A-1 to A-4 have

committed murder of the deceased on the intervening night of

14/15.03.2019 in a brutal manner as per their pre-planned

strategy and thereafter caused disappearance of evidence at

the scene of offence by washing of the blood on the floor in

the house of the deceased and in the bathroom of

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

the deceased and escaped from the scene of offence.

The watchman of the deceased by name Ranganna gave

statement to the police that A-1 was with the deceased on

that night in his house and A-2 to A-4 entered the house of

the deceased on that night with the help of A-1 and that he

has heard some sounds in the house and that thereafter he

has seen A-1 to A-4 leaving the house of the deceased on that

night and that A-1 warned him with dire-consequences not to

disclose regarding the said incident to anyone. The CBI has

also collected the other circumstantial evidence relating to

the complicity of A-1 to A-4 in commission of the said offence

of murder of the deceased in his house. While so, A-4, who

was the former driver of the deceased, made a request to the

CBI in writing stating that he intends to turn as an approver

and that he would disclose all the facts relating to

commission of the said offence including the conspiracy

hatched up to kill the deceased. The CBI has accepted his

request. Accordingly, a petition under Section 306 of Cr.P.C.

was filed before the concerned Court to grant pardon to A-4

as he came forward to disclose the material facts relating to

the commission of the said offence of murder. The said

petition was allowed tendering pardon to A-4 on condition of

disclosing all the facts relating to the offence of murder

committed in this case. The said order was challenged by

A-1 and A-3 by filing two separate Criminal Petitions before

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

this Court. This Court has dismissed both the petitions filed

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as per common order dated

16.02.2022 passed in Crl.P.Nos.6976 and 6980 of 2021, and

confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate tendering

pardon to A-4. Thereafter, the statement of A-4, as

an approver, was recorded by the learned Magistrate on

21.02.2022.

(d) As it is revealed during the course of investigation

that there are influenced persons behind the conspiracy

hatched up to kill the deceased in this case, it is stated that

the investigation is going on to find out the role played by the

other persons in hatching up the conspiracy. Although, it is

stated that a charge-sheet was filed on 26.10.2021 in the

Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula

against A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections

302 and 120-B of IPC, it is stated that the investigation is

still going on to find out the persons who are involved in the

said conspiracy.

3) In the background of the aforesaid factual scenario, it is

stated in the present petition that there is every likelihood of

A-1 influencing the material witnesses in the case and that

the CBI is suspecting that several witnesses in this case are

being influenced at the behest of A-1 and the other accused

D.Siva Sankar Reddy and their close associates. It is further

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

stated that three witnesses by name (i) Sri Gangadhar Reddy;

(ii) Sri J. Shankariah and (iii) Sri M.V.Krishna Reddy, who is

the former P.A. of the deceased and the first informant, are

already suspected to have come under the influence of A-1

and D. Siva Sankar Reddy and other conspirators. Therefore,

the present petition for cancellation of the bail granted to A-1

was filed on the following grounds:

(i) When the CBI has examined the witness Gangadhar

Reddy under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 02.10.2021 that he

stated that after the murder of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy

that he was approached by D.Siva Sankar Reddy, who is one

of the accused in the above crime, who is currently in judicial

custody, in August, 2019, and requested him to take

responsibility for the murder and offered Rs.10 Crores to

him. Gangadhar Reddy on 25.11.2021 has given his

willingness in writing to the Investigating Officer of CBI for

recording his statement before the Magistrate and

accordingly, when an application was filed by the CBI to that

effect before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa,

he has nominated the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jammalamadugu to record the statement of the witness

Gangadhar Reddy under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as per order

dated 27.11.2021, but the said Gangadhar Reddy gave

a statement before media on 29.11.2021 that he is being

influenced by CBI to give the said statement before the

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

Magistrate and that he also gave a representation to that

effect to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu and

that another witness by name Sri Jagadeeshar Reddy also

submitted a complaint, dated 04.12.2021 to the Investigating

Officer of CBI that he is being called and harassed by

Sri V.N.K. Chaitanya, Dy.S.P., on the pretext of conducting

enquiry.

(ii) Similarly, another witness Sri J.Shankaraiah, whose

statement was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., gave

his willingness to record his statement before the Magistrate

and accordingly, when an application was filed to that effect

before the Magistrate, he subsequently did not come forward

to give statement and he refused to appear before the

Magistrate and after one week of his refusal that his

suspension was revoked on 06.10.2021 and he is reinstated

into service.

(iii) Sri M.V.Krishna Reddy, P.A. of the deceased, is the

person who initially furnished information to the local police

regarding the death of the deceased. Accordingly, his

statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

He subsequently, on 13.12.2021 submitted a representation

to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, alleging that he is

being pressurized by the Investigating Officer by name

Sri Ram Singh of CBI, to give false statement.

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

(iv) It is also the version of the CBI that the statement of

the watchman Ranganna shows that the accused have

already caused disappearance of evidence at the scene of

offence and that the statement given by A-4, as an approver,

before the learned Magistrate, shows that the associates of

A-1, who are influenced persons in Pulivendula, are

threatening to kill him.

4) Therefore, it is stated that the aforesaid facts show that

the witnesses are being influenced by the accused and other

associates of the accused have been interfering with the

course investigation and making an attempt to tamper with

the prosecution evidence and the said attempts of the

accused and their associates would hamper the investigation

process.

5) Therefore, Sri Ram Singh, Additional Superintendent of

Police of CBI, SC-III, New Delhi, who has filed this Criminal

Petition, prayed on behalf of CBI to cancel the default bail

granted to A-1.

6) The respondent-accused No.1 filed counter-affidavit

denying the allegations set out in the Criminal Petition filed

by the CBI. Parawise denial of all the allegations are made in

the counter-affidavit. It is pleaded that a petition to cancel

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

the bail that was granted to A-1 was already filed before the

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, in

Crl.M.P.N.791 of 2021 on the same grounds and the said

petition was dismissed as per order dated 30.11.2021.

The CBI did not challenge the said order and it became final.

Therefore, the present Criminal Petition filed again before this

Court for cancellation of bail on the same grounds is not

maintainable. It is further pleaded that unlike rejection of

bail, cancellation of bail is a harsh order, as it amounts to

interfering with the liberty of an individual and so cannot be

lightly resorted to on vague allegations and that release of the

accused on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is

not defeated by lapse of time or filing of charge-sheet.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7) Heard Sri A.Chenna Keshavulu, learned Public

Prosecutor for CBI, appearing for the petitioner and learned

Senior Counsel Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, appearing for the

respondent-accused No.1, at length.

8) Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI Sri A.Chenna

Keshavulu would submit that the murder of the deceased

was committed very designedly as per prior conspiracy and

pre-planned strategy, on the intervening night of

14/15.03.2019 in the house of the deceased and the accused

have also caused disappearance of evidence at the scene of

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

offence by cleaning the floor and washing of the blood found

at the scene of offence. The local police and even the S.I.T.

constituted to investigate the case, could not detect the

conspiracy hatched up to commit the murder of the deceased

and in the said circumstances, as per orders of this Court

that the investigation was entrusted to the CBI and the CBI

has taken-up the investigation in this case and the

investigation revealed that there is a larger conspiracy behind

the commission of the said murder of the deceased and some

influenced persons are involved in hatching up a conspiracy

to commit the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the

investigation is still going on to find out the real culprits, who

are behind the said conspiracy, who are responsible for the

said murder of the deceased and they being the close

associates of A-1 and other accused, have been influencing

the witnesses in this case at the instance of A-1 and thereby

all of them are making an attempt to tamper with the

prosecution evidence. Therefore, they are interfering with the

process of investigation and hampering the process of

investigation. He would submit that the statement of the

watchman Ranganna would establish that the accused have

caused disappearance of evidence at the scene of offence and

that A-1 has threatened him on the night of the date of

offence after committing murder of the deceased not to

disclose anything which he has seen at the house of the

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

deceased to any one, with dire-consequences. He would also

submit that the statement of A-4, who is the approver,

recorded before the learned Magistrate would also establish

that the associates of A-1 have been threatening to kill A-4,

who turned as an approver. He would also submit that two

witnesses, who have agreed in writing to give statements

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate,

subsequently, did not turn up for recording the statement

before the Magistrate at the instance of the accused, which

also establishes that the accused are managing and

influencing the witnesses not to cooperate with the

investigating officer to facilitate proper investigation in this

case. He then contends that one witness also filed a private

complaint before the Magistrate and got it forwarded under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police for registration of case

and investigation against one of the CBI officials on the

ground that he has been threatening him to give false

evidence. When the said CBI official approached this Court

by way of filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that this

Court has stayed further investigation, in view of the

protection available to the police officials under Delhi Police

Establishment Act. Therefore, as these facts establish that

the accused and their associates are interfering with the

process of investigation and making an attempt to tamper

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

with the prosecution evidence, he prayed for cancellation of

the bail that was granted to A-1.

9) Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri B.Adinarayana

Rao appearing for the respondent-accused No.1, would

submit that in order to cancel the bail that was granted to

A-1, prosecution has to establish that A-1 has made any

attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence and thereby

misused the liberty granted to him by way of granting bail to

him. He would submit that nowhere it is stated in the

Criminal Petition filed by the CBI that A-1 has influenced any

witness or that he has made any attempt to tamper with the

prosecution evidence. He would submit that the statement of

A-4, who is the approver, only shows that some other

persons, who are not the accused in this case, threatened to

kill him and A-4 did not state before the learned Magistrate

in his statement that A-1 has threatened to kill him.

He would submit that the statement of A-4 only shows that

when he approached A-1 after he was released on bail in the

year 2019 that A-1 informed him that he would pay money to

him after the case is finalized. He would submit that except

the said statement relating to the incident which took place

in the year 2019, there is nothing to indicate in the statement

of A-4 that he has threatened A-4 to kill him or that he is

managing him or pressurizing him not to cooperate with the

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

investigation. So, he would submit that there is no material

before this Court to substantiate that A-1 has been misusing

his liberty of granting bail to him and making an attempt to

tamper with the prosecution evidence. So, he would submit

that the bail granted to A-1 cannot be cancelled on the said

vague allegations. He then contends that the CBI has

already filed a petition for cancellation of the bail before the

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa with

similar allegations and the said petition was already

dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge and the CBI did not challenge the said order and it

became final. So, they cannot again now file petition for

cancellation of bail on the similar allegations before this

Court and as such, the present Criminal Petition is not

maintainable. He would submit that an order of cancelling

the bail is a harsh order and once the bail is granted that the

Courts would not lightly interfere with the said order to

cancel the same unless strong grounds are established by the

prosecution with legal evidence regarding misuse of the

liberty granted to the accused by way of granting of bail.

Therefore, he would submit that there are absolutely no legal

grounds emanating from the record to substantiate that A-1

has been interfering with the process of investigation and

making an attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

CMR, J.

                                                               Crl.P.No.788 of 2022




10)       Perused the record.

11)       Before adverting to the point whether the default bail

that was granted to A-1 on 27.06.2019 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, is liable to be

cancelled or not, it is apposite to consider the cardinal

principles enunciated by the Apex Court to be considered to

cancel the bail that was already granted to the accused in

a particular case. The Apex Court in the case of Abdul

Basit @ Raju v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary 1 held as

follows:

"Under Chapter XXXIII, Section 439(1) empowers the High Court as well as the Court of Session to direct any accused person to be released on bail. Section 439(2) empowers the High Court to direct any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of the Code be arrested and committed to custody i.e. the power to cancel the bail granted to an accused person. Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (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, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive."

12) Thus, seven grounds are enumerated, which are to be

considered to cancel the bail that was already granted to

an accused in a particular case.

(2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 257

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

13) It is also settled principle of law that once the bail is

granted, the same cannot be cancelled in a mechanical

manner without considering as to whether any

circumstances are there to show that the accused who is on

bail misused the concession of bail or jumped bail.

14) Therefore, bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of

law enunciated by the Apex Court, the present Criminal

Petition filed for cancellation of bail granted to A-1 is to be

considered.

15) While considering the prayer of the prosecution to

cancel the bail of A-1, the Court is required to see whether

after he was released on bail, he has indulged in any acts of

influencing the witnesses, threatening the witnesses and

interfering with the course of investigation by misusing the

liberty that was granted to him or not. The prior incidents

i.e. the incidents that took place prior to his arrest are not

much relevant to consider the present Criminal Petition. His

subsequent conduct after release on bail is to be considered.

16) As already noted supra, as can be seen from the

contents of the Criminal Petition filed by the prosecution, the

CBI sought cancellation of the bail of A-1 precisely on three

grounds viz., (i) the witness Gangadhar Reddy stated before

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

the police at the time of recording his statement under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 02.10.2021 that he was approached

by one of the accused in the crime by name D.Siva Sankar

Reddy, who is currently in judicial custody, in August, 2019

and requested him to take responsibility on him for murder

of the deceased Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy and offered

Rs.10 Crores to him to take up the said responsibility and

the said witness has given his willingness in writing to the

Investigating Officer of CBI for recording the said statement

before the Magistrate and accordingly, an application was

filed by the CBI to that effect before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kadapa, who has nominated the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu to record the

statement of the said witness Gangadhar Reddy under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. as per order dated 27.11.2021, but the

said Gangadhar Reddy gave a statement before media on

29.11.2021 that he is being influenced by CBI to give the said

statement before the Magistrate and that he also gave

a representation to that effect to the Superintendent of Police,

Anantapuramu. Another witness by name Sri Jagadeeshar

Reddy also submitted a report, dated 04.12.2021 to the

Investigating Officer of CBI stating that he is being called and

harassed by Sri V.N.K. Chaitanya, Dy.S.P., on the pretext of

conducting enquiry in the said crime; (ii) Another witness

Sri J.Shankaraiah, whose statement was also recorded under

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

Section 161 Cr.P.C., gave his willingness to record his

statement before the Magistrate. Accordingly, when

an application was filed to that effect before the Magistrate,

he subsequently did not come forward to give statement and

refused to appear before the Magistrate and after one week of

his refusal that his suspension was revoked on 06.10.2021

and he is reinstated into service; (iii) Sri M.V.Krishna Reddy,

P.A. of the deceased, is the person who initially furnished

information to the local police regarding the death of the

deceased. His statement was recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. He, subsequently, on 13.12.2021 submitted

a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa,

alleging that he is being pressurized by the Investigating

Officer by name Sri Ram Singh of CBI, to give false

statement.

17) Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is stated

in the Criminal Petition that the CBI is suspecting that A-1,

the other accused and their associates have been influencing

and managing the witnesses which is hampering smooth

investigation.

18) Apart from the aforesaid three grounds, as noticed

supra, at the time of hearing, as per the submissions made

by the learned Public Prosecutor for CBI, another three

grounds are raised for cancellation of bail of A-1. They are

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

(i) the statement of the watchman by name Ranganna shows

that the accused have already caused disappearance of

evidence at the scene of offence by washing of the blood on

the floor at the scene of offence i.e. the bedroom of the

deceased and in the bathroom and that while the accused are

leaving the house of the deceased on the intervening night of

14/15-03-2019 that A-1 threatened him with dire-

consequences not to disclose the incident to any one and it

shows that A-1 has been threatening the witnesses; (ii) A-4,

who is one of the accused, who committed the murder of the

deceased along with A-1 to A-3, turned as an approver as per

the pardon granted by the Court and he gave a statement

before the learned Magistrate recently on 21.02.2022 under

Section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C. and he stated in the said

statement that the associates of the accused are repeatedly

contacting him to influence him not to give any statement

against the accused and that he also stated that even today

also that they are threatening to kill him and as such, the

said statement of A-4, which was recently given, also shows

that the accused are threatening A-4, who turned as

an approver, and thereby interfering with the process of

investigation; and (iii) one of the witnesses filed a private

complaint against the CBI official in the Court alleging that

he is threatening him to give false statement and got the

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

same forwarded to police to register the case and to

investigate the same.

19) Therefore, precisely, on six grounds i.e. three grounds

as mentioned in the Criminal Petition and other three

grounds which are now urged at the time of hearing of the

Criminal Petition, the prosecution sought for cancellation of

bail granted to A-1.

20) Among the seven grounds which are enumerated by the

Apex Court in Abdul Basit @ Raju v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir

Chaudhary1, ground Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 are not relevant in the

context to consider and they are not applicable to the present

facts of the case. It is not the case of the prosecution that

A-1 has indulged in similar criminal activity by misusing his

liberty. It is not the case of the prosecution that there is

likelihood of A-1 fleeing to another country. So, ground

Nos.1 and 5 are not applicable to the facts of the case. It is

not their case that A-1 is making any attempt to go

underground or becoming unavailable to the Investigating

Agency. So, ground No.6 is also inapplicable to the facts of

the case. Similarly, it is not the case of the prosecution that

A-1 is making any attempt to place himself beyond the reach

of his surety. Consequently, ground No.7 is also not

applicable to the facts of the case. So, only ground Nos.2 to 4

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

are relevant in the context to consider. Ground No.2 relates

to interfering with the course of investigation. Ground No.3

relates to attempt to tamper with the evidence or witnesses

and ground No.4 relates to threatening the witnesses or

indulging in similar activities which would hamper smooth

investigation.

21) Although it is contended by the learned Public

Prosecutor for CBI that A-1 has been interfering with the

course of investigation and attempting to tamper with the

prosecution evidence and has been threatening the witnesses

to invoke the aforesaid ground Nos.2 to 4 to cancel the bail

that was granted to A-1, this Court has absolutely no

hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to

substantiate the said contention by producing any

authenticated material before this Court to show that A-1 has

been interfering with the course of investigation or making an

attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence or

threatening the witnesses in the case.

22) It is significant to note that nowhere it is specifically

stated in the entire affidavit filed in support of this Criminal

Petition that A-1 has threatened the witnesses or made

an attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence or

interfered with the course of investigation. All that is stated

in para.22 of the affidavit is that there is likelihood of A-1

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

influencing the material witnesses. It is only stated that it is

already suspected that several witnesses in the case are

being influenced at the behest of A-1 and that it is already

suspected that some of the witnesses have come under the

influence of A-1 and other accused D.Siva Sankar Reddy and

other conspirators. Therefore, except stating that they are

suspecting that the witnesses are being influenced and that

there is likelihood of A-1 influencing the witnesses and that

they are suspecting that some of the witnesses have already

come under the influence of the accused, it is not specifically

stated anywhere in the Criminal Petition that A-1 has in fact

influenced any of the witnesses or threatened the witnesses

after he was released on bail. The said pleadings in para-22

of affidavit show that it is only their suspicion. On mere

suspicion, bail cannot be cancelled.

23) Even as can be seen from the statement of the accused

i.e. A-4, who turned as an approver, given before the learned

Magistrate recently on 21.02.2022 under Section 306(4)(a) of

Cr.P.C., it is nowhere stated by him in the entire statement

that A-1 has threatened to kill him or that he has influenced

him. A reading of the said statement only shows that after

A-1 was released on bail on 27.06.2019 that A-4 met him and

enquired from him about his future as the case was

entrusted to C.B.I and that A-1 assured him that he will pay

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

money to him after the case is finalized. There is nothing to

indicate from the contents of the entire statement that A-1

has either threatened A-4 or made any effort to influence him

not to disclose any facts relating to the offence before the

police or the Court. Eventhough, he stated that some

persons by name Obul Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy etc.

contacted him and discussed with him about the case, it is

nowhere stated that they approached him and discussed with

him at the instance of A-1. Eventhough, he has stated at the

end of the statement that even as on the date of giving

statement that they are threatening to kill him, he did not

specifically state as to who are threatening to kill him.

It appears to be a vague statement. He did not state

specifically that A-1 has been threatening to kill him.

Therefore, it cannot be said on the basis of the said

statement given by him that A-1 is influencing him or

threatening him with any dire-consequences and thereby

making any attempt to tamper with the evidence of the

witnesses.

24) The mere fact that some of the witnesses who have

initially given their willingness to record their statements

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate have

subsequently, resiled from their consent and refused to give

statements before the Magistrate and that one of the said

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

witnesses has given a statement before the media that police

are threatening him to give false statements by itself also

cannot be a ground to hold that they resiled from their

willingness to give the statement before the Magistrate at the

instance of A-1 and that the statement before the media was

given at the instance of A-1. No material is produced before

the Court even to prima facie show that they subsequently

refused to give the statement before the Magistrate under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the instance of A-1 or that they gave

statement before the media at the instance of A-1. Therefore,

there is nothing on record to hold that they refused to give

statements subsequently at the instance of A-1. So, nothing

can be attributed to A-1 in this regard. Even the fact that

some of the witnesses have complained to the Superintendent

of Police, Kadapa, and to higher officials of CBI stating that

the investigating officer is threatening them to give false

statements also do not enure to the benefit of the case of the

prosecution as there is nothing to indicate on record or to

show that the said complaints are given by the said witnesses

at the instance of A-1. Similarly, the fact that one of the

witnesses filed a private complaint in the Court against the

Investigating Officer of CBI alleging that he is threatening

him to give statements and got it forwarded to police to

register the F.I.R. and to investigate the same also by itself

cannot be a ground to hold that the said complaint was filed

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

at the instance of A-1 sans any material or evidence to that

effect placed before this Court to substantiate the said

allegation. Even though the statement of the witness by

name Ranganna, who is the Watchman in the house of the

deceased, shows that A-1 has threatened him with dire

consequences not to disclose the said incident anywhere, the

said incident took place on the date of offence and before

arrest of A-1. The said threat was not given to the witness by

A-1 after he was released on bail to hold that he has misused

his liberty and thereby threatened the witness. It is already

noticed supra, the conduct of A-1 after his release on bail is

relevant in the context to consider whether to cancel the bail

that was granted to him or not.

25) The facts pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the

Criminal Petition only show that the prosecution got only

suspicion that on account of influence being exerted by A-1

and his associates that the witnesses subsequently refused to

give statements before the Magistrate and that some of the

witnesses gave complaints to the higher police officials and

filed a complaint in the Court and got it forwarded to the

police for investigation. On mere suspicion, surmises and

imaginary apprehension, bail granted to accused cannot be

cancelled. Therefore, unless some evidence which prima facie

establishes that A-1 has been in fact interfering with the

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

course of investigation or threatening the witnesses and

thereby making an attempt to tamper with the prosecution

evidence is produced, the default bail that was granted to A-1

cannot be cancelled.

26) It is also relevant to note here that the CBI has already

filed a petition before the IV Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Kadapa, in Crl.M.P.No.791 of 2021 to cancel the bail

of A-1 on the similar grounds. The said petition was

dismissed as per order dated 30.11.2021. The CBI did not

challenge the said order and it became final. Now, again on

the basis of the same allegations with one additional ground

i.e. the statement of the approver, the present Criminal

Petition is filed. Therefore, as the prosecution failed to

establish even in this Criminal Petition also that A-1 has

been interfering with the course of investigation by

influencing the witnesses or that he is making an attempt to

tamper with the prosecution evidence, the default bail that

was granted to A-1 cannot be cancelled. The Apex Court in

the case of Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana 2

held rejection of bail stands on one footing and cancellation

of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with liberty of

individual and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to.

The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment squarely

applies to the present facts of the case.

(2020) 2 SCC 743

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

27) The judgment of the Apex Court, relied on by the

learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, in the case of

State v. Amarmani Tripathi3 has no application to the

present facts of the case. In the said case, as can be seen

from paras.20 and 21 of the judgment, the evidence that was

collected by the prosecution disclosed that there were

attempts made by the accused to interfere with the

investigation and to side track the investigation and that

threats are given to the witnesses. Therefore, in the said

facts and circumstances of the case, as there is evidence

produced to substantiate the fact that the accused therein

are interfering with the course of investigation and

threatening the witnesses, the Court held that the bail

granted to the accused is liable to be cancelled. As already

noticed supra, in the instant case, no such evidence is

available in this case to substantiate the version of the

prosecution that A-1 has been interfering with the course of

investigation or threatening the witnesses, except suspicion

raised to that effect.

28) Right of the accused to claim bail on account of default

committed by the prosecuting agency in completing the

investigation within the time stipulated in the statute is

a statutory right of the accused and it is also an indefeasible

AIR 2005 SC 3490

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

right of the accused to claim bail. As the investigating agency

failed to complete the investigation within the stipulated

period of time, default bail was granted to A-1. The said

indefeasible right of A-1 to claim bail cannot be defeated by

cancelling the said bail on vague allegations that there is

likelihood of A-1 influencing the witnesses sans any

authenticated material produced to substantiate the same.

In any way, right to bail touches the right of a citizen relating

to his individual liberty what is guaranteed under Article 21

of the Constitution of India. When it is found that he was

entitled to bail on account of default committed by the

investigating agency in completing the investigation within

the stipulated period of time and accordingly, he was

enlarged on bail, the said bail cannot be subsequently

cancelled on vague allegations depriving him of his right

pertaining to his personal liberty what is guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

29) Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish with any

acceptable and authenticated material that A-1 has been

interfering with the course of investigation or influencing the

witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence to

cancel his bail.

30) However, the material that is produced by the

prosecution prima facie shows that the other persons who are

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.788 of 2022

not the accused in the crime are making an attempt to

contact A-4. Though there is no material to show that at the

instance of A-1 that they are contacting A-4, but the fact that

remains established from the statement of approver is that

an attempt is being made to influence A-4, who is the

approver, not to cooperate with the investigating agency.

The statement of A-4 also shows that there is also threat to

his life from some persons. Therefore, the investigating

agency has to take adequate steps to protect the life of A-4

who turned as an approver and also to provide protection to

other witnesses in this case to ensure fair investigation and

trial of the case.

31) Therefore, as the Criminal Petition is devoid of any legal

ground required to cancel the bail that was granted to A-1,

the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

32) Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:16-03-2022.

cs