Telangana High Court

E. Vijaypal Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 17 August, 2021

Bench: G Sri Devi

                   HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                 CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2894 of 2021


ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 (2) of

Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 2nd respondent

herein in Crl.M.P.No.786 of 2018 dated 18.09.2018 on the file of the I-

Additional Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases-cum-V-

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Special

Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent, learned Counsel

appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the record.

A perusal of the material on record would show that a case in

Crime No.10/RCA-ACB-CIU/2018 was registered against the 2nd

respondent herein with an allegation that he had acquired assets

disproportionate to his known sources of income. Subsequently, the

petitioner was arrested on 20.07.2018 and produced before the

Court. By an order, dated 18.09.2018, the I-Additional Special Judge

for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases-cum-V-Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad, granted regular bail to the 2nd

respondent/Accused Officer on his executing a personal bond of

Rs.25,000/- with two sureties to the like amount each subject to the

following conditions.

a) That the Accused Officer shall not influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

b) He shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

c) He shall deposit his passport if any before the Court or file an affidavit if he does not possess any such passport forthwith.

d) He shall attend the DSP, ACB Office, CIU, Hyderabad, once in a week on every Saturday in between 10.00 A.M., to 05.00 P.M., and co-operate for further investigation.

Nearly after lapse of two and half years, the present Criminal

Petition came to be filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of bail

granted to the 2nd respondent.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd

respondent having an impression that this petitioner is instrumental

for registering the aforesaid crime against him, started threatening,

pressurizing and influencing the petitioner, who is one of the

witnesses in the aforesaid crime. He also submits that the petitioner

initially lodged a complaint against the 2nd respondent before the

Chaitanyapuri Police Station, which was registered as a case in

Crime No.18 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 506

and 504 of I.P.C., and filed charge sheet against the 2nd respondent.

He further submits that the 2nd respondent again hatched a plan by

giving supari to hired goondas in order to eliminate the petitioner

and as such the petitioner lodged a further complaint against the 2nd

respondent, which was registered as a case in Crime No.118 of 2020

for the offence punishable under Section 385 of I.P.C. He also

submits that the petitioner reliably learnt that, the 2nd respondent,

along with ACP, Huzurabad, obtained call record of the petitioner

and his whereabouts and as such the petitioner lodged a complaint

before the ACB, who in turn conducted the investigation and has

come to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent obtained the call

records deceitfully and as such the ACB filed Crl.M.P.No.519 of 2020

before the trial Court, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 2nd

respondent and by an order dated 19.01.2021, the learned trial Court

dismissed the said application. He further submits that the

petitioner is apprehending danger to his life in the hands of the 2nd

respondent, as such he filed the present petition to cancel the bail

granted to the 2nd respondent and if the bail is not cancelled, the

petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. He also submits

that the 2nd respondent has violated all the conditions imposed while

enlarging him on bail, as such, the bail granted to him needs to be

cancelled.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st

respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent, after his release

on bail, has started threatening the witnesses and two cases have

already been registered against the 2nd respondent and if the 2nd

respondent is allowed to continue on bail, he will interfere with the

investigation and that there is a danger to the life of the petitioner,

who is one of the witnesses in the aforesaid crime.

Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/accused

would submit that the grounds raised in the petition are vague,

baseless and without iota of evidence. He further submits that the

petitioner has misrepresented and suppressed several crucial facts

before this Court and that the petition is filed basing on the frivolous

and false cases registered against the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd

respondent has already challenged the veracity of the crime that was

registered before the State Human Rights Commission vide Case

No.1390 of 2020, dated 02.06.2020. He also submits that the 2nd

respondent has already lodged a complaint before Karimnagar II

Town Police, against the petitioner herein and one P.Venugopal Rao

(Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police), and one Shanigala

Suresh, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 307 of

I.P.C., but the S.H.O., who was under the influence of the said

P.Venugopal Rao, deliberately failed to register a case, as such, the

2nd respondent filed a private complaint and that on the reference

made by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar, the same was registered as a case in Crime No.499 of

2020. Again the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint against the

petitioner and the said P.Venugopal Rao and as the same was not

considered, the 2nd respondent has filed another private complaint,

which was referred to the police and a case in Crime No.500 of 2020

has been registered. Therefore, he submits that the police are

deliberately refusing to register the complaints lodged by the 2nd

respondent. He further submits that there were disputes between

the 2nd respondent and the petitioner and the cases were registered

at the instance of the petitioner and the said P.Venugopal Rao. It is

further stated that all the allegations raised in the Criminal Petition

are false and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

It is well established law that different yardsticks have to be

adopted for cancellation of bail and interference with an order

granting bail. The Court should take into consideration the post bail

conduct and supervening circumstances for deciding as to whether

it requires cancellation of bail.

In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation1 the

Apex Court held as under:

"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 can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principal that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands, that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In India, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any

(2012) 1 SCC 40

circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.

In Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra2 the Apex

Court held as under:

".............very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."

1999 Crl.L.J. 4063

In Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan3, the Apex

Court held as under:

"While cancelling bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. the primary considerations which weigh with the Court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well-recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc., would not deter the Court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing the accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact of the society."

It is a settled law that bail granted can be cancelled on the

ground which has arisen after the bail was granted. It is generally

presumed that at the time of hearing of the bail application, the

prosecution has raised all possible grounds which could go against

2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 85

the accused in the matter of bail and, therefore, when once bail has

been granted to the accused, the prosecution cannot have the bail

cancelled on some circumstances which may have existed before the

grant of bail.

The ground of cancellation of bail and grounds of rejection of

bail are two different circumstances and hence the approach of the

Court should also be different. At the time of hearing the bail

application, the Court looks at the possibilities of the violation of

bail conditions and the Court has to be more open and flexible,

whereas while hearing the cancellation application, the Court has to

be more rigid and it has to examine not only the possibility of

violations but whether the actual violation has taken place or not.

The Court should be more rigid here and actual proof of violation is

required.

In the instant case, two and half years back, bail has been

granted to the 2nd respondent in a case of disproportionate assets.

As the case was registered with regard to the disproportionate

assets, there cannot be any private witnesses and the prosecution

would collect the official records with regard to the income and

expenditure of the 2nd respondent and they would supply the data

on the basis of the official records. Further, a perusal of the material

on record would show that earlier the 1st respondent/ACB has filed

Crl.M.P.No.519 of 2020 seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the

2nd respondent and by an order, dated 19.01.2021, the learned trial

Judge while dismissing the said petition, observed as under:

"22. Except the allegation against the respondent that he has abused one E.Vijayapal Reddy (L.W.1) against whom he got registered two criminal cases, there is no other material to believe that the respondent herein interfered with the investigation and threatened the witnesses. As per the documents filed by the respondent, it is very clear that he has also approached the Human Rights Commission and filed an application to quash the proceedings, apart from filing two private complaints against the said E.Vijayapal Reddy and others. As per the record, the two private complaints filed by the respondent were referred to the police concerned and two F.I.R.s were registered. It may be true that the respondent obtained call data records of one of the witnesses of the prosecution. Simply because he has obtained the call data record, it cannot be said that he is trying to influence the witnesses or threaten the witnesses. Since the case is under investigation, it is not known whether there are any other disputes between the respondent and witnesses.

23. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent was not found in possession of any disproportionate assets. The case was registered only on the basis of the statement made by E.Vijayapal Reddy. There were disputes between the respondent and said E.Vijayapal Reddy and Venugopal, who worked as ACP, L.B.Nagar. The case is registered at the instance of the above said persons. The main ground for asking the cancellation of bail is the alleged interference of respondent in the investigation and it is pleaded that the respondent is threatening the witnesses. In support of his claim, the petitioner has filed the copies of cases filed at the instance

of one of the prosecution witnesses. The respondent has claimed that he has got disputes with the said witness and one Venugopal, who worked as A.C.P., L.G.Nagar. The present case was registered about morethan two years ago and except the above said two cases, there is no other material to believe the respondent is trying to influence the witnesses or threatening the other witnesses. Since the case registered against the respondent is about his disproportionate assets there may not be any private witnesses and the prosecution would collect evidence about the income, expenditure of the respondent from official witnesses, who would supply the data on the basis of official records. The possibility of existence of some other disputes between the respondent and said E.Vijayapal Reddy cannot be ruled out now."

From the above, it is clear that the 1st respondent has already

filed the petition seeking cancellation of bail before the trial Court

with the same set of grounds and after evaluating the material on

record, the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the said petition

by giving cogent reasons. Hence, I do not find any new ground to

cancel the bail granted to the 2nd respondent since the power of

cancellation of bail must be exercised with care and circumspection

of cogent and overwhelming circumstances which are necessary for

an order seeking cancellation of bail. Where there is no violation of

the terms of order granting bail, cancellation is not justified. The bail

already granted should not be cancelled in a routine manner as it

jeopardizes the personal liberty of the person.