Telangana High Court
Byagari Sayanna Sailu vs The State Of Telangana on 15 December, 2021
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9150 of 2021
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439
Cr.P.C. is filed by petitioner - Accused No. 11 in S.C.No. 5 of
2021 on the file of IX Additional District Judge-cum - Fast
Track Court, Rangareddy District (Crime No. 592 of 2020 of P.S.
Gachibowli) registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 120-B(i), 302, 364, 379, 448, 449, 341, 342, 352, 323
and 506 IPC., seeking bail.
2. The case of prosecution is that: on 24.09.2020, at
about 18.35 hours, Smt. Chintha Avanthi Reddy lodged a
complaint that she married one Hemanth Kumar (hereinafter
referred to as 'the deceased') in 2020 against the will of her
parents and were living separately in TNGO's colony, Phase-II,
Gachibowli. While so, on 24.09.2020, at 14.30 hours, Accused
Nos. 9, 15, 10, 8, 13, 16, 14, 1, 12, 17 and some others came in
three cars, criminally trespassed into their house, beat them
and took them in i20 car of Accused No.10 and forcibly made
them sit in front seat and Accused No.8 sitting beside her and
deceased and all of them informed that they were taking them to
her father's house at Lingampally. However, when the car
reached Gopanpally X Road, above accused diverted the car
towards ORR. Suspecting danger to their lives, both
complainant and deceased got down from the car. At that time,
Accused No.1 and others got down from the car and forcibly
took the deceased in another car and went towards ORR.
Meanwhile, in-laws of complainant came to Gopanpally X Roads
to rescue her. But the above accused abused and threatened
them also with dire consequences. The complainant stated that
at the instigation of her father, all the accused persons, who are
close relatives, hatched a plan to do away the life of the
deceased, abducted him and beat him.
3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State
stating that preliminary investigation disclosed that apart from
Accused Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7, Accused Nos. 2, 3, 9, 15, 10, 8, 13,
16, 14, 12, 17, 4, 11 and 18 also involved in abduction and
murder of deceased. It is stated that on 05.10.2020, Accused
Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 11 were arrested and their confession
statements were recorded and pursuant to confession of
Accused No.5, receipt for purchase of 'Suthil Rope' at SRR
Traders, Chimnapur, toll gate receipts taken at Patancheru Toll
Plaza for travel made on 24.09.2020 in crime vehicle, were
seized. It is also stated that Accused No.11 was hired by
Accused No.1 for committing murder of deceased and Accused
No. 11 as a part of criminal conspiracy for committing
abduction and murder of deceased, contacted Accused No.1
from his cell phone 394 times. It is stated that call data
analysis clearly establishes that Accused No.11 communicated
with other accused for commission of offence. It is also stated
that Accused No.11 resides near the locality of victim, hence,
there is every possibility of his winning over them if he is
released on bail and he may also indulge in intimidating the
witnesses and old-aged parents of deceased and may tamper
with evidence.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri P. Shashi Kiran
submits that petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.11 and in the
first remand case diary dated 26.09.2020, there was no mention
of his name, but on 05.10.2021, basing on the confession of
other accused, petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody. He submits that except the confession statement,
there is no other material to connect petitioner with the alleged
crime. Learned counsel submits that confession statement of
other accused cannot be the basis to implicate petitioner in this
case. It is submitted that from the last 435 days, petitioner has
been languishing in jail. He submits that though in the charge
sheet, it is stated that petitioner contacted Accused No.1 from
his cell phone about 394 times, whether he did calls on that
particular date or not is not clear. According to learned counsel,
as both Accused No.11 and Accused No.1 are known to each
other from the last 20 years, phone calls cannot be a basis for
implicating petitioner. Learned counsel submits that earlier,
petitioner moved Criminal Petition No. 8507 of 2021 but the
same was withdrawn on 25.11.2021, hence, his case may be
considered for grant of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor
submits that as per the charge-sheet, petitioner contacted
Accused No.1, 394 times which shows that both of them
conspired together to commit the offence. He submits that
earlier, this Court dismissed Criminal Petition No. 6868 of 2021
in respect of Accused Nos. 13 and 14, by order dated
25.11.2021, wherein this Court observed that 'in the light of the
judgment of the Apex Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India
(AIR 2018 SC 1601), Fast Track Court was designated to
conduct trial and the said Court had already issued Schedule for
conduct of trial and trial is going to commence from 29.11.2021
onwards. As offence alleged against petitioners is grave in
nature, bail petition was dismissed'. Learned Public Prosecutor
submits that trial in Sessions Case commenced and L.Ws.1 to 3
were examined in chief and the matter is coming up for cross-
examination of P.W.1. He further submits that as per the
Schedule, trial will complete within six months, and as prima
facie case is made out against petitioner, in view of grave nature
of offence, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused
the material on record.
7. Prima facie, as per the charge-sheet, it appears that
petitioner contacted Accused No.1 for about 394 times, which
supports the case of prosecution. Further, trial has already
commenced and as per the Schedule, it will complete within six
moths. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to consider the
case of petitioner for grant of bail.
8. The Criminal Petition is accordingly, dismissed.
___________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
15th November 2021
ksld
