Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 October, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6907 of 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, 'Cr.P.C.'),
seeking bail, by the petitioner/sole accused in Cr.No.195 of 2022
of Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada, initially registered under
Section 174 CrPC, later altered to the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs.
& S.Ts. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1
of 2016 (for short, 'the Act').
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the
deceased worked as a driver of the accused for about six (06)
years and at the time of his marriage, the deceased borrowed an
amount of Rs.50,000/- from the accused and repaid Rs.30,000/-
leaving a balance amount of Rs.20,000/- and about three months
back the deceased discontinued to work at the accused. Since
then, the accused was pressurizing the deceased for repayment
of balance amount and on the night of 19.05.2022, the accused
contacted the father of the deceased over phone and warned the
2
deceased severely to see his end, if the amount is not paid. Later,
when the deceased was consuming liquor with his friends at Nava
Bharat school, Kakinada, the petitioner/accused rushed there by
car, took the deceased with him to somewhere and later the
petitioner/ accused contacted the father of the deceased at 00.52
a.m. and informed that the deceased received injuries due to
road accident at Nagamallithota junction. The younger brother of
the deceased enquired and confirmed that no accident took
place at Nagamallithota junction. Meanwhile, the petitioner/
accused contacted the brother of the deceased and informed that
he was taking the deceased to Amrutha Hospital at Janma
Bhoomi Park, Kakinada and immediately the brother of the
deceased along with some others rushed to Amrutha Hospital and
noticed the deceased in the car and duty doctor examined and
declared the deceased as dead and later the accused took the
dead body of the deceased to Sri Rama Bageechi Enclave
Apartment and informed that the deceased died due to injuries
received by him in a bike accident and directed the parents of the
deceased to cremate the dead body by taking to their native
place and offered an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, when they
3
questioned him, the petitioner/accused abused them on their
caste and threatened them with dire consequences and went
away leaving the dead body of the deceased in his car. The
report of mother of the deceased was registered as Cr.No.195 of
2022 under Section 174 CrPC (suspicious death). Later inquest
was held over the dead body of the deceased and as per the
opinion of panchayatdars, the section of law was altered to 302,
201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs. & S.Ts.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016
(for short, 'the Act').
3. Smt. Veedi Nooka Ratnam, mother of the deceased, got
filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 under section 15A of the S.Cs. & S.Ts.
(PoA) Act, read with Section 482 of CrPC to implead her as
respondent No.2 to this Criminal Petition. The same was allowed
and she was permitted to come on record as the respondent
No.2.
4. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, for
Ms.P.Anitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Dhushyanth
Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 1 st respondent-
4
state and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, for
Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/vicim.
5. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, in
elaboration, would submit that there are no eyewitnesses to the
alleged occurrence and except the alleged confessional statement
of the petitioner/accused said to have been recorded by the
police during his custodial interrogation, which is inadmissible in
evidence, no other material is available on record to connect the
accused with this crime. The confessional statement of the
accused, even if it is taken on its face value, does not disclose
any offence much less the offences alleged, more particularly
section 302 IPC.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the
contents of the charge sheet as well as the alleged confessional
statement of the accused do not show any motive on the part of
the petitioner for commission of the offence.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that while
considering the question of grant of bail, court should avoid
consideration of details of the evidence and exhaustive
5
exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided. He would
further submit that entire investigation has been completed and
charge sheet has also been laid and thus there is no possibility of
either tampering the prosecution evidence or hampering the
process of investigation, in case the petitioner is released on bail.
He would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
catena of decisions has reiterated that bail is the rule and
committal to jail is an exception and that refusal to bail is a
restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. He would further submit that
the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since
23.05.2022 and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
required that too after completion of investigation and filing of
charge sheet.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that,
earlier, Crl.M.P.No.1351 of 2022 got filed by the petitioner for
grant of bail was dismissed by the Special Sessions Judge on
30.08.2022 without giving proper reasons.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that since
mother of the petitioner died, the petitioner was granted interim
6
bail by this Court and the petitioner has not violated any of the
conditions imposed by this Court and after completion of the
interim bail period he has surrendered himself as directed by this
Court.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that
object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person
at the trial and the object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen hails from a
reputed family commanding good respect and he is a Member of
Legislative counsel and thus there is no reason to apprehend that
he would either flee away from justice or threaten the witnesses.
He would further submit that the petitioner would abide by any
conditions imposed by this Court.
In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner relied on (1) Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation1 (2) Seema Singh Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation2 and (3) Anil Kumar Yadav vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and another3.
1
. (2012) 1 SCC 40
2
. (2018) 16 SCC 10
3
. (2018) 12 SCC 129
7
On the above contentions, the learned senior counsel prays
to allow this Criminal Petition and grant bail to the petitioner/
accused.
6. Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and placed on record
the post-mortem report of the deceased and the details of cases
registered against the accused and the proceedings of the closure
of rowdy sheet of the accused. He would submit that
investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed in so far
as the petitioner is concerned, however, possibility of involvement
of other persons in this case has to be unearthed and as of now
there are no direct eyewitnesses to the occurrence except the
circumstantial evidence and the investigating agency is thriving
hard to secure evidence regarding involvement of others in this
crime and thus, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and
pendency of investigation regarding involvement of others, it is
not desirable to release the petitioner/ accused on bail. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel for the
2nd respondent/victim, would submit that the relevant
8
consideration while granting bail are (i) nature or seriousness of
the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused; and (likelihood of the accused
fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on
the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v)
likelihood of his tampering.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the
postmortem report of the deceased clearly establishes that the
petitioner had beaten the deceased to death causing as many as
31 external injuries and three (03) internal injuries, which are
ante- mortem, leaving no part of the body of deceased uninjured.
Further, the petitioner, after committing murder, tried to screen
away the evidence by removing the dead body from the place of
occurrence by his car and he tried to stage-manage as if the
deceased died due to the injuries received in an accident and
when the family members of the deceased did not believe the
same and questioned him, the petitioner threatened the family
members of the deceased to cremate the dead body immediately
luring them with payment of money. The post crime conduct of
9
the petitioner/accused would demonstrate his cruel nature and
that he can go to any extent to manage the things.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the
petitioner confessed that when he pushed the deceased, the
deceased fell down and died all of a sudden and out of fear, he
caused injuries on the dead body by beating it with a stick to
make it appear that the deceased died in an accident. whereas,
the postmortem certificate of the deceased reveals that all the
injuries found on the dead body are ante-mortem in nature.
Thus, it is evident that the petitioner with an intention to
eliminate the deceased beaten him to death.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the
petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court to perform
obsequies and to discharge last rights of his deceased mother
and during that period so many politicians of the ruling party
met him and had consultations with him and this indicates that if
the petitioner is granted bail, he would resort to nefarious means
and would mount immense pressure on the prosecution
witnesses to wriggle out of case.
10
The learned senior counsel would further submit that as
many as 17 cases were registered against the petitioner and that
within a few months after his party came into power he got
removed the rowdy sheet against him and this shows the
influence he has in the Government as well as with the police and
thus, if the petitioner is released, there is every likelihood of his
threatening the witnesses from deposing against him. He would
further submit that filing of charge sheet does not in any manner
lessen the allegations rather it establishes that after due
investigation prosecution has filed charge sheet for trial of the
petitioner/accused, thus completion of investigation and filing of
charge sheet in no way be taken as a ground to grant bail that
too in a heinous crime of killing.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the
application got filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was
dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that if the
petitioner is released on bail, he may threaten the witnesses and
the family members of the deceased might be the next victims in
the hands of the petitioner/accused.
11
The learned senior counsel would further submit that
mother and sister of the petitioner/accused abused the paternal
uncle of the deceased and threatened him that they would do
away with his life after release of the petitioner from jail and in
that regard the paternal uncle of the deceased gave report to II
Town L&O Police Station, Kakinada. Thus, if the petitioner is
granted bail, the lives of the witnesses and family members of
the deceased would be at peril.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that while
granting bail though the period of custody has to be considered,
but it should be weighed with the totality of the circumstances
and the criminal antecedents of the accused. In the case on
hand, though the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more
than 120 days, his involvement in more than 17 cases apart from
this case cannot be lost sight of.
In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel
relied on Sunil Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another4,
Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another5,
Virupakshappa Gouda and another vs. State of Karnataka
4
. (2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 245
5
. (2021) 4 Supreme Court Cases 781
12
and another6, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee
and another7, Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of
Gujarat and another8 and orders passed by a coordinate
bench of this Court9.
On the above contentions, the learned senior counsel
opposed bail to the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. In reply to the contentions raised by the learned senior
counsel for victim and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
regarding involvement of the petitioner in 17 other crimes, the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner/accused has submitted
that the petitioner was falsely implicated in 17 cases prior to the
year 2015 and out of those, 16 cases were either ended in
acquittal or referred as false by the prosecution and in another
case, this Court granted stay in quash proceedings. Thus, it is
evident that all the cases have been foisted against the petitioner
out of political animosity. He would further submit that the
Rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner was closed in the year
6
. (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406
7
. (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 496,
8
. (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1
9
. Orders dated 01.08.2022 in Criminal petition Nos. 1904 of 2022 & batch
13
2019. Thus, the apprehensions ventilated by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the
victim in this regard are not true. With regard to politicians
meeting the petitioner is concerned, they met the petitioner to
express their condolence on account of death of his mother.
Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the victim
and the learned Additional Advocate General are not tenable.
9. Before dealing with the facts of the case, it is
appropriate to extract the relevant portions relied on by the
learned counsel in support of their respective contentions.
10. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from
the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of
the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object
of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must
be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an
accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after
conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly
tried and duly found guilty.
24. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the "pointing
finger of accusation" against the appellants is "the seriousness of the
charge". The offences alleged are economic offences which have
14
resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that
there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses,
they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our
view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant
considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the
only test or the factor : the other factor that also requires to be taken
note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and
conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption
Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be
balancing the constitutional rights but rather "recalibrating the scales of
justice".
xxxxxxxx
25. The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on
criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal
against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be
exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of
liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our
view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is
affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole
basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends
respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent
until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to
chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an
individual.
26. This Court, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan [(2005) 2 SCC 42 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 489] observed that : (SCC p.
52, para 18)
"18. ... Under the criminal laws of this country, a person
accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be
detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is
enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot
be questioned as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution,
since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of
non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned
comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is
satisfied by reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence
of prima facie case, there is need to release such [accused] on
bail, where fact situations require it to do so."
15
27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the
rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that
refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the
individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
28. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand [(1977) 4 SCC 308 :
1977 SCC (Cri) 594] this Court opined : (SCC pp. 308-09, paras 2-
3)
"2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail,
except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from
justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other
troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating
witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement
on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but
only illustrative.
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to
induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must
weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the
heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in
this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial
court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court,
there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in
him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so
unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or
unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the
court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of
the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a
family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not
militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At
the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or
other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner
will report himself before the police station at Baren once every
fortnight."
11. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and others relied on the learned counsel for the
petitioner, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
"11. The order of the High Court shows that in coming to the
conclusion that Respondent 2 was entitled to bail, pending trial,
the following factors weighed with it:
16
11.1. Videography of the post-mortem was not done.
11.2. After the alleged accident, Respondent 2 had informed
about the same to the family members of the deceased. On
receiving this information, mother of the deceased had arrived
and post-mortem was done in her presence and other family
members. At that time, certain doctors who were close and well-
known to the family of the deceased were also present at the
spot and they had taken certain photographs of the body before
the post-mortem was done. At that time, none of these persons
raised any objection with regard to the videography of the post-
mortem not being done. They did not demand second post-
mortem either in case they had suspicion.
11.3. Insofar as the report of AIIMS is concerned, it is solely
based on photographs which were provided to the panel of
doctors and, thus, doctors never conducted any post-mortem on
the body of the deceased.
11.4. There is no eyewitness account which may show that
the girl was either tortured or threatened on the way or she was
injured, though vague allegations have been made in this behalf
but without any supporting documents.
11.5. After investigation, the charge-sheet had been filed by
CBI. The main crux of the charge-sheet is only the documentary
evidence and not any eyewitness account. Documentary evidence
is already available with CBI. Therefore, there is no possible
apprehension of Respondent 2 in either hampering with the
investigation or tampering with the evidence or threatening
anybody in case he is released on bail.
11.6. There is no likelihood of the accused absconding as
well."
12. In Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, their
Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
17
15. As held in Puran case [Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC
338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] , while considering the question of
grant of bail, court should avoid consideration of details of the
evidence as it is not a relevant consideration. While it is necessary
to consider the prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of the
merits of the case should be avoided. We, therefore, consciously
refrain from considering the merits of the materials/evidence
collected by the prosecution.
xxxxxxxxxx
18. While considering the basic requirements for grant of bail,
in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [State of U.P. v. Amarmani
Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] , this Court
has held as under : (SCC p. 31, para 18)
"18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered
in an application for bail are (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
charge; (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 tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course,
of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh
Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674]
and Gurcharan Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Gurcharan
Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC
(Cri) 41] ]. While a vague allegation that the accused may
tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground
to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his
mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if
there is material to show that he will use his liberty to
subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be
refused. We may also refer to the following principles
relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] : (SCC pp.
535-36, para 11)
'11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is
very well settled. The court granting bail should
exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as
a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting
18
bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being
granted particularly where the accused is charged of
having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid
of such reasons would suffer from non-application of
mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to
consider among other circumstances, the following
factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support
of the charge. (See Ram Govind
Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [Ram Govind
Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 :
2002 SCC (Cri) 688]
and Puran v. Rambilas [Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6
SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)'"
13. In Sunil Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another
relied on by the learned senior counsel for the victim, their
Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
15. Even otherwise the High Court has erred in not
considering the material relevant to the determination of whether
the accused was to be enlarged on bail. The High Court has not
at all adverted to the relevant considerations for grant of bail.
In Anil Kumar Yadav [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425] , it is observed and
held by this Court that while granting bail, the relevant
considerations are:
(i) nature of seriousness of the offence;
(ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused; and
(iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
19
(iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution
witnesses, its impact on the society; and
(v) likelihood of his tampering.
xxxxxxxxxxx
17. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422 : (2016) 4 SCC (Cri) 647] , after
referring to a catena of judgments of this Court on the
considerations to be placed at balance while deciding to grant
bail, it is observed in paras 15 and 18 as under : (SCC pp. 429-
30)
"15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky
that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents
of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the
doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of
crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor
offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the
crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of
imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a
thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential
rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be
alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large
and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion
judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.
***
18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with profit
that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the cancellation
is not sought because of supervening circumstances. The
annulment of the order passed by the High Court is sought as
many relevant factors have not been taken into consideration
which includes the criminal antecedents of the accused and that
makes the order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result is
the lancination of the impugned order [Budhpal v. State of U.P.,
2014 SCC OnLine All 14815] ."
14. In Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, relied on by the learned counsel for the victim their
Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
8. This Court in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
527] held that when a stand was taken that the accused was a
history-sheeter, it was imperative for the High Courts to scrutinise
every aspect and not capriciously record that the accused was
entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
9. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh [Ash
Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 : (2012) 3 SCC
(Cri) 1172] , this Court observed that when citizens were scared
to lead a peaceful life and heinous offences were obstructions in
the establishment of a well-ordered society, the courts play an
even more important role, and the burden is heavy. It
emphasised on the need to have a proper analysis of the criminal
antecedents of the accused.
10. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3
SCC (Cri) 765] , it was held that this Court ordinarily would not
interfere with a High Court's order granting or rejecting bail to an
accused. Nonetheless, it was equally imperative for the High
Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly
in compliance with the ratio set by a catena of decisions of this
Court. The factors laid down in the judgment were:
(i) Whether there was a prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of accusations;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if granted
bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused;
(vi) likelihood of repetition of the offence;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced;
and
(viii) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
11. There is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a
person charged with crime but it is important for the courts to
recognise the potential threat to the life and liberty of
victims/witnesses, if such accused is released on bail.
15. In Virupakshappa Gouda and another vs. State of
Karnataka and another relied on by the learned senior counsel
for the victim, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
"12. 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 [Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1
SCC (Cri) 514] , especially in para 86, the relevant part of which reads
thus : (SCC p. 729)
"86. ... The courts considering the bail application should try
to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-à-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."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
15. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman
Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1974] 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 v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,
(2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] , 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 : (SCC p. 499, para 9)
"9. ... among other circumstances, the factors which are to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(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."
16. In CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7
SCC 452 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 563] , the Court had reiterated the principle
by observing thus : (SCC p. 465, para 34)
"34. 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 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."
(emphasis in original)
17. 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 v. State of
U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Cri) 527] , wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail
observed : (SCC pp. 514-15, para 16)
"16. The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can
annul the order passed [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC
OnLine All 16031] by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the
second respondent? We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is
a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bedrock of
the 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 civilised society. It is a cardinal value on
which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and
immobilised. 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 its members, 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."
16. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee
and another relied on the learned senior counsel for the victim,
their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"11. 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."
17. In Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of
Gujarat and another, relied on the learned senior counsel for
the victim, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
"15. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to certain
authorities which lay down the considerations that should weigh with
the Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences. This Court
in State v. Capt. Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 215
: (1962) 3 SCR 622] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi
Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] has held that the
nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the
evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a
reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being
secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being
tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and
other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and
circumstances of the case are to be considered. The said principles
have been reiterated in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of
T.N. [(2005) 2 SCC 13 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 481]
16. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 674] this Court has culled out the principles to be
kept in mind while granting or refusing bail. In that context, the two-
Judge Bench has stated that: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
"8. ... While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public or the State and similar other
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes
of granting the 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 it (sic 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."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
18. Recently, in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh [(2012) 9 SCC
446 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1172 : JT (2012) 9 SC 155] this Court while
dealing with individual liberty and cry of the society for justice has
opined as under: (SCC p. 454, para 18)
"18. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be
accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal
which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The
prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail
in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula
for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication
should express not only application of mind but also exercise of
jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a
society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious
crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society the concept
of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to
disturb the tranquillity and safety which every well-meaning person
desires."
19. We are absolutely conscious that liberty is a greatly
cherished value in the life of an individual, and no one would like to
barter it for all the tea in China, but it is obligatory on the part of the
court to scan and scrutinise, though briefly, as regards the prima
facie case, the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the
potentiality of the accused to tamper with the evidence apart from
other aspects before the restriction on liberty is lifted on imposition
of certain conditions."
18. The learned senior counsel for the victim relied paras-17
and 31 and they are extracted hereunder:
"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.
"31...... 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."
19. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court regarding refusal or grant of bail, now the facts
of the case have to be looked into.
20. Perused the First Information Report, Charge sheet
and the material placed on record and also considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
21. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in
an application for bail are:
(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 charge;
(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
tampered with; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail.
22. It is an established principle of law, "object of bail is
to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by
reasonable amount of bail and the object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that
an accused person will stand his trial when called upon". It is
also an established principle of law, "while considering the
question of grant of bail, court should avoid consideration of
details of the evidence as it is not a relevant consideration".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has
reiterated that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an
exception and that refusal to bail is a restriction on the
personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution.
23. According to the petitioner, there is no eyewitness
account and the case rests on the circumstantial evidence and
the confessional statement of the petitioner said to have been
recorded by the police. The petitioner has been in judicial
custody since 23.05.2022. The entire investigation has been
completed and charge sheet has been laid.
24. It is no doubt a settled principle of law that court
should avoid consideration of details of the evidence and
exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be
avoided. However, while granting bail the Court is duty bound to
see whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence, nature and
gravity of the charge and severity of the punishment in the event
of conviction.
25. A perusal of the post-mortem report, which is placed
on record, would disclose that as many as 31 antemortem injuries
and three (03) internal injuries were found on the deceased
suggesting that the deceased was beaten severely to death. The
contents of the charge sheet would disclose that the dead body
of the deceased was found in the car of the deceased and that
the petitioner informed the parents of the deceased that the
deceased met with an accident and died and when they
disbelieved his version and questioned him, the petitioner offered
them Rs.2,00,000/- and asked them to take the dead body to
their village and cremate and when they refused, he threatened
them with dire consequences. Thus, the record discloses that
prima facie the accusation made against the petitioner is well
founded.
26. Though charge sheet has been laid, it is settled law
that mere filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner
lessen the allegations made by the prosecution and 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. Hence,
completion of investigation cannot at all be taken as a mitigating
circumstance to grant bail.
27. It is also appropriate here to note that the learned
Special Sessions Judge while dismissing bail application got filed
by the petitioner observed that relatives of the petitioner
threatened the paternal uncle of the deceased that the petitioner
would do away with his life after release of the petitioner. Thus
there is reasonable apprehension to the lives of the family
members of the deceased, in the event the petitioner is released
on bail.
28. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since
23.05.2022. 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 potential threat to the life and liberty of
the victim/witnesses. In view of the post crime conduct of the
petitioner as well as his relatives in threatening the witnesses, as
could be perceived from the order of the Special Sessions Judge,
there is potential threat to the life and liberty of
victims/witnesses, if the petitioner is released on bail.
29. The judgments relied on by both the senior counsel
are no doubt settled principles of law. However, each case has to
be dealt with independently based on the facts and circumstances
of the case. The offence alleged in this case is heinous. The
record prima facie discloses that the accusation made against the
petitioner is well founded. Considering the social status of the
petitioner as MLC of the ruling party and in view of post crime
conduct of the petitioner/accused and his relatives, this Court
finds force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/victim that there is threat to life and liberty of
witnesses. Apart from these, according to the prosecution,
investigating agency is thriving hard to find out involvement of
other accused in this crime. In view of these, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
30. In view of the above, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date : 12.10.2022
RR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DISMISSED
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6907 OF 2022
Date : 12.10.2022
U
RR
